SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2008
Common cold.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors for Respiratory Viral Infections: A Spotlight on Climate Change and Air Pollution.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Review
- Global burden of upper respiratory infections in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2019.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Acute Olfactory Dysfunction-A Primary Presentation of COVID-19 Infection.Ear, nose, & throat journal · 2020Article
- Upper respiratory tract infections (including otitis media).Pediatric clinics of North America · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEach year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have 2-3 infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within a week, but coughs often persist for longer. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for common cold? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants (norephedrine, oxymetazoline, or pseudoephedrine), decongestants plus antihistamine, echinacea, steam inhalation, vitamin C, and zinc (intranasal gel or lozenges).
Indexed as
Identifiers
19450292PMC2907967W4301902092What 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.