Talk:Otitis media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The homeopathy section is excessive and cites a homeopathy journal article for support. Homeopathy journals are about the only place you'll find any support for these unscientific methods - they are universally ridiculed by scientific medicine. The concept that a medicine's effectiveness varies in inverse proportion to the amount administered would be comical if it weren't an actual belief. It is like citing an alchemy journal which purports to change base metal into gold, rather than talking to a chemist. To be sure there is spirited debate regarding the treatment of OM, which is all to the good, but homeopathy - while it should be mentioned - offers nothing of scientific merit to this article. Rmcnabb 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)rmcnabbRmcnabb 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

i cited 4 articles for support, one of which is a homeopathy journal, and two of which are conventional, peer-reviewed journals - Pediatr Infect Dis J & Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. Ignore the others if you prefer, that is your choice, but please allow other people to make their own informed decision. 82.35.25.19 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC) cazldn

I've deleted the passage on Homeopathy in accordance with WP:Reliable Sources. The cited articles are themselves at best flawed and at most outright fallacious. (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc) Unless someone can provide some exceptional sources to support this exceptional claim, I recommend it stay deleted. Swakeman 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please justify your claim that The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal and The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics are unreliable sources.

Further, could you please point out exactly which aspects of the studies are flawed and fallacious so that I may respond to them specifically.

cazldn 82.45.189.76 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a claim which is not supported by the mainstream scientific community, and therefore requires more profound sourcing than that homeopathic treatments subjectively reduce pain. For example, your abstract for "Acute otitis media in children," it merely states that homeopathic treatment results in subjectively more pain relief than conventional treatment. This does not mean that homeopathic treatment is more efficient in the treatment of otitis media, but rather that homeopathic treatment is more efficient in the treatment of pain than the conventional treatment for otitis media. Morphine, for example, may produce a much greater reduction of pain, but that doesn't make it a miracle cure for acute otitis media. Swakeman 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I did give you 'more profound sourcing' than hom. subjectively reduces pain. The 'Acute O.M in children' article to which you refer also showed faster resolution rates and fewer complications in the homeopathically treated group than the conventional group.

The Friese study showed that 70% of children did not have another ear infection for a year following homeopathic treament cf. 56% in the conventionally treated group. 26% of the hom group had a maximum of 3 infections in the following year cf. 43% of the conv. group had a maximum of 6 infections in the next year.

If you can point to anything 'flawed' or 'fallacious' in this study I'll do my best to respond. cazldn 82.35.240.22 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The former example actually illustrates my point quite perfectly. I myself have absolutely no clue what it means for a treatment to exhibit resolution rates "2.4 times faster than placebo controls." Absolute rubbish. A resolution rate can be greater or less than, but can't be faster. That also refers to placebo controls, making no statement concerning treatment effectiveness relative to conventional treatment. Also, you wrote that the homeopathic group showed fewer complications than the conventional group... however the study only states that no complications were observed in the homeopathic study.

The Jacobs study first admits outright that the study is not statistically significant. The study only states that homeopathy experienced less treatment failures compared to placebo and makes no mention of any conventional treatment.

The Harrison study is a "pilot" and includes only 33 participants.

That leaves only the Friese study which isn't glaringly fallacious at first glance. One study, however, is hardly enough to convince me. Swakeman 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valsalva maneuver?

Is is true that "repeated use of the Valsalva maneuver to dislodge infected matter from the middle ear can cause this matter to enter the eye cavity, leading to conjunctivitis." This may be true, but it sounds a bit bizarre to the casual reader so a citation would be useful. Manuz 04:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conventional Treatment

while plugging our favorite brands on wiki, we should at least try to use good sentence structure and not that of a common marketer.

A good treatment is Using Eardoc is the best non invasive treatment today it generates and transmits vibration waves through the bone and the ear base to the middle ear and the Eustachian tube.

66.55.213.235 04:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about adding references to

Good page. How about adding link / reference to Myringotomy information? 66.26.88.42 16:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)