SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
The efficacy of
Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 7-point evidence-based care discharge protocol for patients hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD: consensus strategy and expert recommendation.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of inhalable ambroxol hydrochloride aerosol for adult patients with respiratory diseases: an open-label, single-arm, multicentre study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Trial
- Antioxidants as Therapeutic Tools in the Management of COPD: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Beyond Conventional Treatment: Herbal Medicine and Nutraceuticals as Complementary Therapies for COPD and Asthma.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2026Review
- N-acetylcysteine: evidence based consensus document on the therapeutic advantages in respiratory diseases (NECTAR).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- NLRP3 inflammasomes at the ARDS-cancer interface: mechanisms and translational hypotheses.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Intra-Articular N-Acetylcysteine Reduces Synovitis Without Preventing Cartilage Degeneration in Experimental Osteoarthritis.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Pulmonary Emphysema: Current Understanding of Disease Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Approaches.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Antioxidants and Reactive Oxygen Species: Shaping Human Health and Disease Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Delaying disease progression in COPD with early escalation to triple therapy: a modelling study (DEPICT-2).ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Therapeutic outcomes and inflammatory modulation of inhaled N-acetylcysteine bronchoalveolar lavage in severe pneumonia.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- The Protective Role of L-Cysteine in the Regulation of Blood-Testis Barrier Functions-A Brief Review.Genes · 2024Review
- Cellular and Molecular Biology of Mitochondria in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Clinical and Molecular Endpoints in COPD Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Post-Stroke Infections: Insights from Big Data Using Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
objectivesThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of long-term oral NAC therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsThe literature search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all included clinical studies. Studies were eligible for inclusion only if they directly compared the outcomes of NAC
resultsNine randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. There were 1061 patients in the NAC group and 1076 patients in the placebo group. The current meta-analysis provides evidence that the number of patients with no acute exacerbations (965 patients receiving NAC therapy, 979 control group patients), change in FEV1 (433 patients receiving NAC therapy, 447 control group patients), change in FVC (177 patients receiving NAC therapy, 180 control group patients), change in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (128 patients receiving NAC therapy, 131 control group patients), change in glutathione levels (38 patients receiving NAC therapy, 40 control group patients), and adverse events (832 patients receiving NAC therapy, 846 control group patients) were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionNAC did not reduce the risk of acute exacerbation or ameliorate the decline in lung volume in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.
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.