SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009
Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections in paediatric patients without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- N-acetylcysteine for the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Probiotics for preventing acute upper respiratory tract infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections in paediatric patients without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Primary Care Physician Characteristics and Low-Value Care Provision in Japan.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- N-acetylcysteine in paediatrics: a review of efficacy, safety and dosing strategies in respiratory care.Drugs in context · 2025Review
- Mucoactive Agents in the Therapy of Upper Respiratory Airways Infections: Fair to Describe Them Just as Mucoactive?Clinical medicine insights. Ear, nose and throat · 2019Review
- Patient presentation and physician management of upper respiratory tract infections: a retrospective review of over 5 million primary clinic consultations in Hong Kong.BMC family practice · 2014Article
- Systematic review of clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of ivy leaf (hedera helix) for acute upper respiratory tract infections.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcetylcysteine and carbocysteine are the most commonly prescribed mucolytic drugs in many European countries. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been published on their efficacy and safety for acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in children without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease.
objectivesThe objective was to assess the efficacy and safety and to establish a benefit-risk ratio of acetylcysteine and carbocysteine as symptomatic treatments for ARTIs in children without chronic broncho-pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, issue 4) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2008); Micromedex (2008), Pascal (1987 to 2004), and Science Citation Index (1974 to 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: To study efficacy, we used randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of acetylcysteine or carbocysteine versus placebo either alone or as an add-on therapy.To study safety, we also used trials comparing the use of acetylcysteine or carbocysteine versus active treatment or no treatment and case reports. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We performed a subgroup analysis of children younger than two years of age. MAIN
resultsSix trials involving 497 participants were included to study efficacy. They showed some benefit from mucolytic agents, although differences were of little clinical relevance. No conclusion was drawn about the subgroup of infants younger than two years because the data were unavailable. Thirty-four studies including the previous six trials involving 2064 children were eligible to study safety. Overall safety was good but very few data were available to evaluate safety in infants younger than two years. However, 48 cases of paradoxically increased bronchorrhoea observed in infants were reported to the French pharmacovigilance system. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because it was based on a limited number of participants included in studies whose methodological quality is questionable. Acetylcysteine and carbocysteine seem to have a limited efficacy and appear to be safe in children older than two years. These results should take into consideration the fact that acetylcysteine and carbocysteine are prescribed for self-limiting diseases (for example, acute cough, bronchitis). Regarding children younger than two years, given concerns about safety, these drugs should only be used for ARTIs in the context of an RCT.
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.