ReviewLung2021
Placebo and Side Effects Confound Clinical Trials on New Antitussives.
Review in Lung, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Camlipixant: A New Hope for Refractory Chronic Cough?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Methods to address functional unblinding of raters in CNS trials.Translational psychiatry · 2025Article
- LUNG Year in Review: 2021.Lung · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review discusses how the placebo effect related to treatment side effects may confound clinical trials on antitussives and specifically looks at the implications for trials on ATP antagonists. These new antitussives have distinctive side effects on the sensation of taste, and investigators have expressed concerns that this may unblind the clinical trials. Blinding is an essential component of trial design, but the degree of blinding in trials is rarely assessed. The assumptions of additivity and balance in clinical trials are discussed as important factors that allow assessment of the pharmacological activity of an antitussive. How side effects unbalance a clinical trial by amplifying the placebo effect of active treatments is discussed. The point is made that unblinding of trials invalidates any assessment of efficacy but that there is little interest or discussion about this fundamental aspect of trials. Proposals are discussed which may improve the blinding of trials and control placebo effects by changes to participant information, trial design, patient selection and use of active placebos. The issue of unblinding of clinical trials is not a new issue, but if real progress is to be made in developing new antitussives, then it is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed.
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.