Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16517221›Full record

ReviewRespiratory physiology & neurobiology2006

Current and future centrally acting antitussives.

Donald C Bolser

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Respiratory physiology & neurobiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Codeine versus placebo for chronic cough in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Peripheral antitussives affect temporal features of tracheobronchial coughing in cats.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Central mechanisms II: pharmacology of brainstem pathways.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2009
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donald C BolserDepartment of Physiological Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. bolserd@mail.vetmed.ufl.edu
University of Florida · US

Funding

Regulation of the Cough ReflexR01HL070125 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BOLSER, DONALD C · 2003 to 2006
$1.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL070125NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL70125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to highlight some important issues regarding current centrally acting antitussive drugs as well as discuss the implications of these matters on the development of future cough suppressants. Drugs that act in the central nervous system to inhibit cough are termed centrally acting and this designation is based exclusively on evidence obtained from animal models. This classification can include drugs that act both at peripheral and central sites following systemic administration. These drugs are intended to reduce the frequency and/or intensity of coughing resulting from disorders of any etiology. There are a number of central cough suppressants identified by their efficacy in animal models and the most prominent of these are codeine and dextromethorphan. Although the exact neural elements on which these drugs act are currently unknown, they are thought to inhibit a functionally identified component of the central system for cough known as the gating mechanism. The efficacy of codeine and dextromethorphan in humans has recently been questioned. These drugs are less effective on cough induced by upper airway disorders than in pathological conditions involving the lower airways in humans. The reasons for this difference in antitussive sensitivity are not clear. We propose that sensory afferents from different regions of the airways actuate coughing in humans by antitussive sensitive and insensitive control elements in the central nervous system. This hypothesis is consistent with results from an animal model in which laryngeal and tracheobronchial cough had different sensitivities to codeine. Other factors that may be very important in the action of central antitussive drugs in humans include the role of sensations produced by a tussigenic stimulus as well as plasticity of central pathways in response to airway inflammation. Resolution of these issues in the human will be a challenging process, but one which will lay the foundation for the development of more effective cough suppressants.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntitussive AgentsBrainClinical Trials as TopicCoughHumansAntitussive Agents

Identifiers

PMID16517221
PMCPMC3131070
OpenAlexW1985950276

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.