↓ Skip to main content

Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 2,564)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
Title
Treatments for subacute cough in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, September 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x698885
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Speich, Anja Thomer, Soheila Aghlmandi, Hannah Ewald, Andreas Zeller, Lars G Hemkens

Abstract

Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these. To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough. The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses. Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments. Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 300%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 200%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 156. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#77,726
of 12,358,097 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#29
of 2,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,618
of 259,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,358,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.