SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Antibiotics for the common cold.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of a multiple intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Trial
- Patient Perspectives on the Drivers and Deterrents of Antibiotic Treatment of Acute Rhinosinusitis: a Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Does additional antimicrobial treatment have a better effect on URTI cough resolution than homeopathic symptomatic therapy alone? A real-life preliminary observational study in a pediatric population.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2015Article
- Assessment of antibiotic prescribing in Latvian general practitioners.BMC family practice · 2013Article
- Influence of patient payment on antibiotic prescribing in Irish general practice: a cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
- Antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in children: how can we improve?London journal of primary care · 2010Article
- Use of antibiotics by primary care doctors in Hong Kong.Asia Pacific family medicine · 2009Article
- Acute upper airway infections.British medical bulletin · 2002Review
- Acute infections in primary care: accuracy of electronic diagnoses and electronic antibiotic prescribing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe common cold is caused by viruses which cannot be helped by antibiotics.
objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of antibiotics for the common cold. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Family Medicine Database, and reference lists of articles, and we contacted principal investigators. The most recent search was in December 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo in acute upper respiratory tract infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN
resultsMain results: Seven trials involving 2056 people aged between six months and 49 years were included. The overall quality of the included trials was variable. People receiving antibiotics did not do better in terms of cure or improvement than those on placebo (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.28 fixed effects model). One study found a significant benefit for antibiotics compared with placebo for runny nose (clear or purulent). The only other study to evaluate purulent nasal discharge found no significant benefit for antibiotics. Only one study reported work time lost with 22% of those on antibiotic treatment and 25% of those on placebo but this was not significant. Patients treated with antibiotics had a significant increase in side effects (odds ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 7.27, random effects model). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsREVIEWERS'
conclusionsThere is not enough evidence of important benefits from the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections with antibiotics and there is a significant increase in adverse effects associated with antibiotic use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.