However, it is important to note that, as the efficacy conclusions of the study are based only on data from children, all of whom were recruited from Malawi, any effect on efficacy between the centers would not have changed the outcome of this study.
A randomised controlled trial is required to draw efficacy conclusions.
Although there is some evidence for efficacy, conclusions are limited by methodological challenges [ 4, 6– 9].
However, additional statistical analyses were undertaken correcting for these imbalances and they were found to have no qualitative effect on the efficacy conclusions.
Reduced sample size limits the efficacy conclusions that can be drawn from the study; despite this, the sample size is considerable given the rarity of the disease and the stringent eligibility criteria for study participation.
Efficacy conclusions in the Abstract were rated as indicating that the experimental intervention had not been shown to have benefit or had no benefit, that it showed promise, or that it showed actual benefit.
While the small studies included in this review have indicated promising results for this treatment, the substantial levels of non-compliance make interpretation of outcomes difficult and casts some doubt on the equivalent efficacy conclusions.
Regarding efficacy, no conclusions can be drawn, mainly because of the limited test period of the model.
After reading the full texts of the selected articles, the following variables were noted separately for each article: details of the patients, number of centers participating in the study, name of the country where the study was performed, trial design, objectives of the trial, interventions, adverse effects detected in the trial, efficacy, and conclusions.
Conclusion: Efficacy of the homeopathic drug Ars.
