ArticleThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Interventions for cough in cancer.
Article in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Management of Refractory Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022Article
- Sales of Over-the-Counter Products Containing Codeine in 31 Countries, 2013-2019: A Retrospective Observational Study.Drug safety · 2022Observational
- P2X Receptors: Potential Therapeutic Targets for Symptoms Associated With Lung Cancer - A Mini Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- A cross sectional study to determine the prevalence of cough and its impact in patients with lung cancer: a patient unmet need.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Palliative radiotherapy.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Open respiratory archivesReview
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 9, 2010 on "Interventions for cough in cancer". Cough is a common symptom in patients with malignancies, especially in patients with lung cancer. Cough is not well controlled in clinical practice and clinicians have few management options to treat it.
objectivesThe primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, (other than chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy) in the management of cough in malignant disease (especially in lung cancer). SEARCH
methodsFor this update, we searched for relevant studies in CENTRAL and DARE (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; AMED and CINAHL to 9 June 2014. In addition, we searched for ongoing trials via the metaRegister of controlled trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials (quasi-experimental trials and trials where there is a comparison group but no mention of randomisation) in participants with primary or metastatic lung cancer or other cancers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all studies for inclusion, and extracted data from all included studies independently before reaching consensus. A third review author arbitrated on any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the heterogeneity of the studies. MAIN
resultsFor the original version of the review, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and examined either brachytherapy, laser or photodynamic therapy (eight studies) or a variety of pharmacological therapies (nine studies). Overall, there was an absence of credible evidence and the majority of studies were of low methodological quality and at high risk of bias. Brachytherapy in a variety of doses seemed to improve cough in selected participants, suggesting that possibly the lowest effective dose should be used to minimise side effects. Photodynamic therapy was examined in one study and, while improvements in cough were observed, its role in relationship to other therapies for cough was unclear. Some indication of positive effect was observed with morphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, levodropropizine, sodium cromoglycate and butamirate citrate linctus (cough syrup), although all studies had significant risk of bias. For this update, we did not identify any additional trials for inclusion. Two ongoing trials were identified but no study results were available. AUTHORS'
conclusionsNo new trials were included since the publication of the original version of this review, while 11 new studies that were identified were eventually excluded from this review. Therefore, our conclusions remain unchanged. No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review. There is an urgent need to increase the number and quality of studies evaluating the effects of interventions for the management of cough in cancer.
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.