Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12137610›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Antibiotics for the common cold.

B Arroll, T Kenealy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Common cold.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2007
    Article
  7. A population-based study of different antibiotic prescribing in different areas.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Infectious triggers of asthma.Immunology and allergy clinics of North America · 2005
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The common cold.Lancet (London, England) · 2003
    Review
  13. Antibiotics for acute purulent rhinitis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

B ArrollGeneral Practice, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. b.arroll@auckland.ac.nz
T Kenealy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe common cold is considered to be caused by viruses and it has long been believed that antibiotics have no role in treating this condition. In many countries doctors will often prescribe antibiotics for the common cold in the belief that they may prevent secondary bacterial infection and in some cases to respond to patient demand. There is also increasing concern over the resistance of common bacteria to commonly used antibiotics. A crucial step in reducing the use of antibiotics for the common cold is to examine the evidence to see if there is any benefit or if there is benefit for some subgroups or symptom constellations.

objectives(1) To determine the efficacy of antibiotics in comparison with placebo in the treatment of acute upper respiratory tract infections (common colds) in terms of the proportion of patients in whom the clinical outcome was considered to be a reduction in general symptoms and specific nasopharyngeal symptoms. (2) To determine whether there are significant adverse outcomes associated with antibiotic therapy for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute upper respiratory tract infection. 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 May 2001 SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo in acute upper respiratory tract infections with less than 7 days of symptoms DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsAll analyses used fixed effects unless otherwise stated Main results: Nine trials involving 2249 (2157 analysed) people aged between two months and 79 years (and adults with no upper age limit) years were included. The overall quality of the included trials was variable. People receiving antibiotics did not do better in terms of lack of cure or persistence of symptoms than those on placebo (odds ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.59 to 1.08). Only one study Taylor et al (1977) specifically reported persistence of clear rhinitis with a small benefit to those on antibiotics. Two studies found a significant benefit for antibiotics compared with placebo for runny nose (clear) odds ratio 0.42 (0.22-0.78). Two studies also found a significant benefit in patients with sore throat odds ratio 0.27 95% CI (0.10-0.74). 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. Adult patients treated with antibiotics had a significant increase in adverse effects (odds ratio 3.6 95% CI 2.21 to 5.89) while there was no significant increase in children odds ratio 0.90 95% CI (0.44-1.82). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsREVIEWERS'

conclusionsThere is not enough evidence of important benefits from the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections with antibiotics to warrant their routine use in children or adults and there is a significant increase in adverse effects associated with antibiotic use in adult patients.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCommon ColdHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.