Study	Reason for exclusion
Antonello 2012	Not randomised: "Two therapeutic choices have been proposed to the family. On the basis of personal beliefs, the PRM treatment or the conventional one has been chosen."
Attena 1995	Study on adults
Beghi 2016	Retrospective study, not a trial
D'Souza 2012	Single‐blind study
Ferley 1987	Study on all age groups range 5 to 95 years, mean age 36.5 years
Friese 2001	Study assessed efficacy of homeopathic treatment on adenoid vegetations, which is not an acute respiratory tract infection.
Harrison 1999	Study was non‐blinded.
Jong 2016	Study was non‐blinded. Compared homeopathy versus homeopathy with no placebo or conventional treatment group.
Lasfargues 1983	Intervention was vitamin A plus, L‐cystine, saccharomyces and sulphur (commercial product 'Solacy'); this is not a homeopathic remedy.
NCT00858494	Open‐label study (trial registry only)
Rottey 1995	Study on adults, not children
Salami 2008	Intervention was sulphurous water inhalation, this is not a homeopathic remedy.
Steinsbekk 2005b	The waiting‐list control group was not considered blinded.
Steinsbekk 2007	Study not double‐blinded.
Taylor 2011	Homeopathic intervention was administered via ear drops, not orally.
Thinesse‐Mallwitz 2015	Study not double‐blinded
Torbicka 1998	Intervention was delivered intramuscularly. Not blinded
Van Haselen 2016	Study not double‐blinded.
Zanasi 2014	Study on adults