SynthesisPeerJ2026
The efficacy of N-acetylcysteine in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024597263). In February 2026, a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify eligible published studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Statistical analyses, including the generation of forest plots, were performed using Review Manager software. Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 2,856 patients were included in the final analysis. The primary analysis of acute exacerbations included 2,609 participants, with 1,295 patients in the NAC group and 1,314 in the control group. Compared with the control group, NAC was associated with a reduced incidence of acute exacerbations in patients with COPD (risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.79-0.96], Conclusions: These findings suggest that NAC may reduce the risk of acute exacerbations in patients with COPD without increasing drug-related adverse events. However, the available evidence does not indicate clear benefits for pulmonary ventilation, quality of life, or GSH levels. Further high-quality, large-scale, and rigorously designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.