Herbal medicines are particularly regarded as an alternative or complement to conventional pharmaceuticals in the treatment and prevention of respiratory tract infections (RTI).
Therefore the purpose of this review was to identify evidence for herbal therapy in the treatment of RTI concerning effectiveness and safety.
Medline/PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched through 12 February 2015.
Randomized controlled trials comparing herbal therapy with no treatment, placebo or any pharmaceutical medication in children and adolescents (age 0 to 18 years) with RTI were eligible.
Eleven trials with 2,181 participants were included. No clear evidence for Echinacea (4 trials) or an herbal compound preparation (1 trial) in preventing RTI symptoms was found. Meta-analysis revealed evidence for efficacy (responder rates: risk ratio [RR] = 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54 to 4.26; P < 0.01; heterogeneity: I(2) = 38%; χ(2) = 9.63; P = 0.14) and safety (patients with adverse events: RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.42 to 2.66; P = 0.9; heterogeneity: I(2) = 72%; χ(2) = 10.64; P = 0.01) of Pelargonium sidoides in treating respiratory tract infection symptoms compared to placebo (6 trials).
Due to conflicting evidence in the included studies no concrete conclusion on effects of Echinacea could be drawn so far. In the case of Pelargonium sidoides, performed meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence for efficacy and safety in the treatment of respiratory tract infections in children.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
10
10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
4
4%
Chemistry
3
3%
Other
9
9%
Unknown
46
45%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,469,262
of 32,106,825 outputs
Outputs from Academic Pediatrics
#125
of 1,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,698
of 353,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Pediatrics
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,106,825 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
