ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2012
Doxofylline and theophylline: a comparative clinical study.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Potential of doxofylline in the treatment of chronic obstructive airway diseases (Review).Biomedical reports · 2025Review
- Doxophylline With Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia: A Case Report.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2024Article
- cAMP-PDE signaling in COPD: Review of cellular, molecular and clinical features.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2023Review
- Determination of the structural, electronic, optoelectronic and thermodynamic properties of the methylxanthine molecules theophylline and theobromine.Optical and quantum electronics · 2020Article
- Efficacy and safety profile of xanthines in COPD: a network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018Review
- Doxofylline is not just another theophylline!International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCOPD is one of the major public health problems worldwide. Theophylline has been used in the treatment of COPD for decades. Doxofylline a new theophylline congener has been claimed to have better safety profile. The study was undertaken to compare theophylline and doxophylline at doses recommended and commonly used in clinical practice.
methodsThe study was conducted in patients of COPD in TB chest department of a medical college hospital. It was randomized, prospective and open label. A total of 154 patients were divided in two group .Group I was administered 400 mg theophylline SR once daily and group II was administered doxofylline 400 mg twice a day orally. Spirometric variables symptom score, and adverse effects were recorded on day 0, 7 and 21 of therapy. Data were compared and analysed using SPSS version 16.
resultsResults of the study showed that there was no statistically significant difference with respect to spirometric variables and symptom score in the two groups and there was no significant difference in two groups with respect to side effects (p>0.05).
conclusionsIt is concluded that doxophylline has no advantage over theophylline in terms of either efficacy or safety on the doses commonly used in current clinical practice.
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.