ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2016
The efficacy of specific neuromodulators on human refractory chronic cough: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. 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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative Tools and Perspectives in Cough Management: Cancer and Cough.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2026Review
- Neuromodulators in Acute and Chronic Cough in Children: An Update from the Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and progressive pulmonary fibrosis: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand 2023 revision.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for refractory or unexplained chronic cough: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Gabapentin versus baclofen for treatment of refractory gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Prediction of therapeutic efficacy of gabapentin by Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire in chronic refractory cough.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2020Article
- Altering cough reflex sensitivity with aerosolized capsaicin paired with behavioral cough suppression: a proof-of-concept study.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Best supportive care for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: current gaps and future directions.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018Review
- Managing patients with chronic cough: challenges and solutions.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been several published reports on the use of orally administered, specific centrally acting medicines for the treatment of idiopathic cough; however, there is no extant systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated their efficacy and safety for the treatment of idiopathic cough in human beings.
methodsWe conducted a series of definitive systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Claims data from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wan Fang, and Cochrane Library databases were used. We also reviewed articles and reference lists of relevant articles pertaining to human subjects published prior to March 26, 2016. No language restrictions were imposed. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies, which were matched using Review Manager 5.3 software. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The outcome data were the number of subjects whose symptoms declined, measured by cough or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score. Random effect meta-analyses were used to pool the findings. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.
resultsThree RCTs, regarding the medicines baclofen, amitriptyline, and gabapentin, were conducted involving 92 persons in total. Our reviews confirmed that baclofen, amitriptyline, and gabapentin show promise in the treatment of cough for select cases of refractory chronic cough. After-treatment relief of cough symptoms was significant (risk ratio =2.41; 95% CI: 1.15-5.04, n=84). Each of the medicines was well tolerated with minimal side effects. Methodological biases in the design and execution of cluster randomized trials might contribute to any selection bias in this review.
conclusionsBaclofen, amitriptyline, and gabapentin may be effective 'non-specific' antitussives in clinical settings, although none of them are used in medical assessments or routinely included in the anatomic diagnostic protocol.
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.