SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of mucolytic agents in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different mucolytic agents in patients with COPD.
methodsThis study enrolled adults, regardless of the medication regimen. The control groups received placebo, usual care, or a medication other than the intervention group. We reported interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), ROS, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), adverse effects, and exacerbation rates. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata MP15, R4.4.3, and Bayesian network models. The quality of the included studies was assessed using RoB 2.0. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception up to January 28, 2026 to identify English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes related to inflammatory markers and pulmonary function parameters. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024622223).
resultsData from 4408 COPD patients across 18 RCTs were analyzed. For reducing 8-isoprostane (SUCRA was 97.06%) and ROS (SUCRA was75.26%), erdosteine 900 mg was more effective. Regarding inflammatory markers, tyloxapol outperformed in reducing IL-6 (SUCRA was 67.16%) and IL-8 levels (SUCRA was 69.44%). For improving FEV1, erdosteine 900 mg (SUCRA: 89.40%) ranked first according to the SUCRA ranking. For reducing exacerbation rates of COPD (SUCRA: 87.72%) and the incidence of adverse reactions (SUCRA: 79.04%), cineole was the most efficacious. These results demonstrated that cineole was the most favorable for lowering the incidence of adverse reactions and exacerbation.
conclusionErdosteine 900 mg is most effective for improving lung function and reducing oxidative stress, while cineole is safer with a lower incidence of adverse reaction and acute exacerbation. Future multicenter, large-sample RCTs are warranted to collect data on long-term safety, explore combination therapies, and systematically monitor adverse drug reactions.
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.