ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2015
Levodropropizine for treating cough in adult and children: a meta-analysis of published studies.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Codeine and Levodropropizine in Patients With Chronic Cough.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Trial
- Comparative Analysis of Classic and Novel Antitussives on Cough Suppression in Guinea Pigs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Peripheral antitussives affect temporal features of tracheobronchial coughing in cats.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025Article
- Neuromodulators in Acute and Chronic Cough in Children: An Update from the Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Levodropropizine and Its Potential Therapeutic Advantages Considering Eosinophil Levels and Clinical Indications.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cough Remedies for Children and Adolescents: Current and Future Perspectives.Paediatric drugs · 2020Article
- Levodropropizine-Induced Anaphylaxis: Case Series and Literature Review.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2017Article
- Survey on attitudes of Italian pediatricians toward cough.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
- Ozone-Induced Hypertussive Responses in Rabbits and Guinea Pigs.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2016Article
- Comprehensive evidence-based review on European antitussives.BMJ open respiratory research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCough is one of the most common symptoms for which patients seek medical attention from primary care physicians and lung specialists. About 40% of the population at any one time report cough. Cough is associated with significantly impaired health-related quality of life. Levodropropizine is an effective and very well tolerated peripheral antitussive drug. We want to compare it to central cough suppressants efficacy (opioids and non-opioids) that may be associated with side effects limiting their use.
methodsAfter a comprehensive literature search, a meta-analysis of 7 clinical studies of levodropropizine vs. control, including a total of 1,178 patients, was performed with the aim to evaluate the overall comparative efficacy of levodropropizine in the pediatric and adult population. Three electronic databases and reference list were used to search for studies that assessed the efficacy of levodropropizine for treating cough in children and adults using as standardized efficacy parameters the cough frequency and severity, and number of night awakenings as outcome parameters.
resultsThe meta-analysis of all standardized efficacy parameters showed a highly statistically significant difference in the overall antitussive efficacy in favor of levodropropizine vs. control treatments (p = 0.0015). The heterogeneity test for the efficacy outcome was not statistically significant (p = 0.0534). Seven studies met out inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the eligible ones showed a statistically significant difference in the overall anti-tussive effect of levodropropizine versus control (p = 0.0015).
conclusionsThis analysis indicates that levodropropizine is an effective antitussive drug in children and adults, with statistically significant better overall efficacy outcomes vs. central antitussive drugs (codeine, cloperastine, dextromethorphan) in terms of reducing cough intensity and frequency, and nocturnal awakenings. This result further reinforces the favorable benefit/risk profile of levodropropizine in the management of cough. The efficacy of levodropropizine in the treatment of cough in children and adults is higher than that of the common centrally-acting anti-tussive.
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.