ArticlePloS one2024
Research status of east Asian traditional medicine treatment for chronic cough: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traditional Chinese medicine combined with conventional Western medicine for chronic cough following respiratory infection in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Real-World patterns of Korean medicine and combined Korean-Western medicine use in patients with chronic cough at Korean medicine institutions: a nationwide cohort study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Acupuncture-related therapy for chronic cough: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen patients continue to experience cough despite conventional treatment, East Asian traditional medicine (EATM) including herbal medicine and/or acupuncture has been frequently used. Previous systematic reviews of EATM treatment for chronic cough have been conducted mainly on herbal medicine, targeting patients with conditions that cause cough. In clinical practice, EATM interventions are not limited to herbal medicine, and considering that chronic cough is often caused by two or more conditions or unspecific causes, a comprehensive investigation is clinically relevant. We examined the current research status of EATM for chronic cough.
methodsBased on Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodological framework, a total of six English, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese electronic databases were searched on August 2022. Any clinical studies on EATM targeting chronic cough patients (regardless of their cause) were included.
resultsAmong 474 included studies, the study designs were mainly randomized controlled trials (72.4%), and the population was evenly distributed between children and adults. The cause of cough was not reported in most studies (56.1%). The common cause of cough was upper airway cough syndrome and post-respiratory infection (9.5%, each), followed by mixed cause (7.6%), nonspecific cause (5.9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (4.0%). EATM was conducted for a mean of 19.1 days, and herbal medicine was the most common (80.6%). Conventional medication was frequently used as a control (81.2%). For outcomes, the total effective rate was the most frequently utilized (94.3%), followed by cough severity (53.8%). EATM treatment showed positive outcomes in most studies.
conclusionsIn future EATM studies, it is necessary to either specify the cause of chronic cough or to report that the study was targeting nonspecific chronic cough. In addition, high-quality studies assessing the efficacy of EATM with placebo control treatment should be conducted, using validated evaluation tools.
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.