Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income country settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in both community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted without date or language limits in December 2022 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) trial registries. The reference lists of retrieved studies or related systematic reviews were screened for studies not identified by the searches.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and cluster trials that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within either the community setting or in health facility settings, and the neonates  in the neonatal care units or community settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six studies: two RCTs, one cluster-RCT, and three cross-over trials. Three studies involved 3281 neonates; the remaining three did not specify the actual number of neonates included in their study. Three studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The number of nurses included was not specified by one study. A cluster-RCT included 103 pregnant women of over 34 weeks gestation from 10 villages in a community setting (sources of data: 103 mother-neonate pairs) and another community-based study included 258 married pregnant women at 32 to 34 weeks of gestation (the trial reported adverse events on 258 mothers and 246 neonates). Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life. Three studies were rated as having low risk for allocation bias,  two studies were rated as unclear risk, and one was rated as having high risk. One study was rated as having a low risk of bias for allocation concealment,  one study was rated as unclear risk, and four werw rated as having high risk. Two studies were rated as having low risk for performance bias and two were rated as having low risk for attrition bias.  One class of agent versus another class of agent: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) For this comparison, no study assessed the effect of the intervention on the incidence of suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two percent chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) probably reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser in regard to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93; 2932 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB): 385. The adverse outcome was reported as mean self-reported skin change and mean observer-reported skin change. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser, based on very low-certainty evidence for mean self-reported skin change (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.01; 119 participants, 1 study) and on mean observer reported skin change (MD -0.19, CI -0.35 to -0.03; 119 participants, 1 study), respectively. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor the duration of hospital stay. One class of agent versus two or more other classes of agent: CHG compared to plain liquid soap + hand sanitiser We identified no studies that reported on our primary and secondary outcomes for this comparison except for author-defined adverse events. We are very uncertain whether plain soap plus hand sanitiser is better than CHG for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (MD -1.87, 95% CI -3.74 to -0.00; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).  One agent versus standard care: alcohol-based handrub (hand sanitiser) versus usual care The evidence is very uncertain whether alcohol-based handrub is better than 'usual care' in the prevention of suspected infections, as reported by mothers (RR 0.98, CI 0.69 to 1.39; 103 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether alcohol-based hand sanitiser is better than 'usual care' in reducing the occurrence of early and late neonatal mortality (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) and (RR 0.29, CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found a paucity of data that would allow us to reach meaningful conclusions pertaining to the superiority of one form of antiseptic hand hygiene agent over another for the prevention of neonatal infection. Also, the sparse available data were of moderate- to very low-certainty. We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

This Cochrane Review has been withdrawn from publication. Errors were identified in the data extraction process and in the reporting of results, and as such the findings of the review may not be reliable. The authors and the Cochrane Neonatal Co-ordinating Editor agreed to withdraw the review, following an internal investigation. The authors are undertaking a full revision of this Cochrane Review, with the intention of publishing a new version.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale. Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants). Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Malariometric Indices among Nigerian Children in a Rural Setting.

Malaria contributes to high childhood morbidity and mortality in Nigeria. To determine its endemicity in a rural farming community in the south-south of Nigeria, the following malariometric indices, namely, malaria parasitaemia, spleen rates, and anaemia were evaluated in children aged 2-10 years. This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey among school-age children residing in a rubber plantation settlement. The children were selected from six primary schools using a multistaged stratified cluster sampling technique. They were all examined for pallor, enlarged spleen, or liver among other clinical parameters and had blood films for malaria parasites. Of the 461 children recruited, 329 (71.4%) had malaria parasites. The prevalence of malaria parasitaemia was slightly higher in the under fives than that of those ≥5 years, 76.2% and 70.3%, respectively. Splenic enlargement was present in 133 children (28.9%). The overall prevalence of anaemia was 35.7%. Anaemia was more common in the under-fives (48.8%) than in those ≥5 years (32.8%). The odds of anaemia in the under fives were significantly higher than the odds of those ≥5 years (OR = 1.95 [1.19-3.18]). Malaria is highly endemic in this farming community and calls for intensification of control interventions in the area with special attention to school-age children.

Antipyretic measures for treating fever in malaria.

BACKGROUND: Fever is common in malaria, and drugs and sponging are widely used for symptomatic relief. Some researchers have suggested that fever reduction may prolong malaria illness. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether treatments to reduce fever in malaria influence the course of the illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Trial Register (June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 6, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2012); EMBASE (1980 to June 2012) and LILACS (June 2012). We contacted researchers and organisations working in the field to enable us identify other unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of fever reduction measures in adults or children with confirmed malaria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria were independently applied by two authors. We extracted data from trials that met our pre-specified criteria using a standard data extraction form. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous data. GRADE was used to evaluate and summarize the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials with 990 participants including both adults and children met our inclusion criteria. All were small scale trials with methodological limitations and were conducted in a variety of patients. Some trials detected an impact of antipyretic drugs on fever clearance time, while others did not. Regarding parasite clearance,no clear influence of anti-pyresis was demonstrated (six trials, 423 participants, very low quality of evidence). No difference in the number or severity of adverse events between antipyretic drugs and control was detected. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know whether antipyretics alter parasite clearance time. Whether further trials are worthwhile to investigate this or not would require a judgement of whether this was an important question to resolve using interventional trials.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale.Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2 2009); EMBASE (1990 to April 2009); CINAHL (1982 to April 2009); Web of Science (2000 to April 2009); AMED (1985 to April 2009); and LILACS (1982 to April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing honey given alone or in combination with antibiotics versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. Trial authors of the included study were contacted for additional information on unpublished data. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT of 108 children with upper respiratory tract infections comparing the effect of honey, dextromethorphan and no treatment on cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents was included. Comparing symptoms and sleep quality scores of children that received honey with those that received no treatment showed that honey was more effective in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -0.99; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.35, bothersome cough (MD -0.93; 95% CI -1.76 to -0.10), and sleep quality of the child (MD -0.92; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.07); but did not differ significantly between the honey versus no treatment groups in resolving severity of cough (MD -0.69; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.07) and sleep quality of the parents (MD 0.80; 95% CI -1.67 to 0.07). Dextromethorphan and honey did not differ significantly on cough frequency (MD -0.49; 95% CI -1.15 to 0.17); cough severity (MD -0.50; 95% CI -1.28 to 0.29), bothersome cough (MD -0.29; 95% CI -1.14 to 0.56) and sleep quality of the children (MD -0.70; 95% CI -1.57 to 0.17) or their parents (MD -0.34; 95% CI -1.24 to 0.55). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of honey for acute cough in children.