ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
A comparative study of the impact of prescription and non-prescription mucolytic agents on respiratory disease management in a community-based population.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Respiratory disease significantly impacts quality of life at the same time economic burden. Mucolytic agents are widely used in respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). However, real-world differences in clinical outcomes between prescription-guided and over-the-counter (OTC) mucolytic use in community settings remain inadequately characterized. Objective: The present study aimed to compare symptom improvement and adverse effects between prescription based and OTC mucolytic users, and to evaluate patterns of usage and healthcare seeking behaviour consultation in a community setting. Methods: A longitudinal observational study conducted among 200 participants categorized into OTC and prescription groups conducted after getting institutional Ethical approval (BVDUMC/IEC/399/25-26). Data collected using structured questionnaires assessing symptom scores, adverse effects, and healthcare utilization. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and Chi-square test. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Ethical approval was obtained before starting the study. Results: The prescription group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in symptoms, with mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores decreasing from 21 to 18 (p < 0.01). In contrast, the OTC group exhibited a significant worsening of symptoms, with mean scores increasing from 26.5 to 30 ( Conclusion: Prescription mucolytic therapy demonstrated better outcomes compared to OTC use, likely due to structured treatment and medical supervision. These findings indicate the importance of rational prescribing and patient education in respiratory disease management.
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.