Trial reportJournal of Korean medical science2022
Effectiveness and Safety of Codeine and Levodropropizine in Patients With Chronic Cough.
Trial report in Journal of Korean medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study of AG NPP709 Compared With Ivy Leaf Extract in Patients With Acute or Chronic Respiratory Symptoms.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Trial
- Article
- Beyond codeine - the evidence landscape of conventional, natural, and emerging antitussive therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety ofFood science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of Classic and Novel Antitussives on Cough Suppression in Guinea Pigs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Nationwide study of chronic codeine use and its impact on cough related diseases in South Korea.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Patient-reported assessments of chronic cough in clinical trials: accessory or primary endpoints?Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundRecent progress in chronic cough management includes controlling cough triggers and hypersensitivity using antitussives. Therefore, we investigated the effects and safety outcomes of antitussives, codeine and levodropropizine, in patients with chronic cough.
methodsWe conducted an open-label, randomized comparative trial with newly referred patients with chronic cough. Patients were orally administered codeine (60 mg/day) and levodropropizine (180 mg/day) for 2 weeks. Cough severity, including the visual analog scale (VAS), Cough Symptom Score (CSS), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and safety for each treatment were assessed. The primary outcome was VAS score changes before and after 2 weeks of treatment.
resultsAmong the 88 participants, 45 and 43 in the codeine and levodropropizine groups, respectively, were included in the analysis. Changes in the VAS score were higher in the codeine group than in the levodropropizine group (35.11 ± 20.74 vs. 19.77 ± 24.83,
conclusionCodeine is an effective and generally well-tolerated antitussive for chronic cough. However, it may induce side effects in some patients. Individual responses and adverse events should be carefully monitored when codeine is used to treat chronic cough.
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.