ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Theobromine for the treatment of persistent cough: a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Supplementary Study of Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire Scores Before and After Treatment Study: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Pivotal Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Theobromine in the Management of Cough."
A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Adaptive Pivotal Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral BC1036 in the Management of Cough
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding the impact of the placebo response in clinical trials for chronic cough.ERJ open research · 2024Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the effect of BC1036 on health-related quality of life (QOL) in subjects with persistent cough. The secondary objective was to investigate the effect of BC1036 on subjective cough severity.
methodsThis was a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 289 subjects with persistent cough. Subjects received BC1036 or placebo twice daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint comprised cough-related QOL assessed using the validated Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) at Day 14. Secondary endpoints comprised the LCQ scores at Day 7 and Day 28, cough severity VAS scores at each visit and pulmonary function tests.
resultsAt baseline, mean total LCQ score in the BC1036 group was lower (i.e., worse QOL) than placebo (P<0.001), indicating significant between-group heterogeneity. Mean baseline-adjusted change in LCQ score at Day 14 was greater for BC1036 [mean (SD) 2.4±3.5] compared to placebo [mean (SD) score 2.2±3.0], but did not reach statistical significance (P=0.60). Mean cough severity VAS score decreased to a greater extent in the BC1036 group compared to placebo, but again the results were not statistically significant (-12.2±23.28 in BC1036 group and -11.0±21.34 in placebo group at Day 14, P=0.688). There was no significant change in pulmonary function measurements. The adverse event (AE) profile was similar in both groups.
conclusionsThis study showed that BC1036 was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint did not achieve statistical significance, the magnitude of improvement was greater with BC1036 compared to placebo with respect to improving QOL and reducing cough severity. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01656668.
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.