CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Respiratory viral infections researchSinusitis and nasal conditionsHerbal Medicine Research Studies

Effectiveness of pseudoephedrine plus acetaminophen for treatment of symptoms attributed to the paranasal sinuses associated with the common cold

Sperber, S. J.·2000·Archives of Family Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archfami.9.10.979
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Little data exist on the cause and treatment of subfacial pain and pressure and other discomfort attributed to the paranasal sinuses that develop early during the course of the common cold. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of the combination of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride with acetaminophen for the treatment of early symptoms during colds, which are attributed by the patient to the sinuses. Methods Four hundred thirty subjects (216, pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen recipients; 214, placebo recipients) with cold symptoms of 48 hours or less who reported overall "sinus" symptoms of at least moderate severity were enrolled in this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled 2-dose study. Self-reported symptoms were scored (0 to 4, absent to severe) before and at 2 hours after the first and second doses. The 2 primary were measured 2 hours after the second dose were the overall sinus symptom assessment and a weighted composite assessment of sinus pressure, pain, and congestion (sinus symptoms). Results Compared with baseline, 2 hours after the second dose, the mean +/- SEM overall sinus symptom assessment score had decreased by 1.30 +/- 0. 06 in the pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen-treated subjects compared with 0.93 +/- 0.06 in the placebo-treated subjects (P Conclusion Our results suggest that pseudoephedrine plus acetaminophen is effective for relief of symptoms attributable to the paranasal sinuses that may develop early in the course of a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archfami.9.10.979

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In three trials, dry mouth occurred in 2.6% of participants in the active treatment group and 1.8% in the control group (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.83; 3 studies, 764 adults; low certainty evidence).

    “In three trials dry mouth was noted as an adverse effect (Eccles 2006a; Middleton 1981; Sperber 2000), occurring in 2.6% of participants in the active treatment group and 1.8% of participants in the control group (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.83; 3 studies, 764 adults; low certainty evidence due to imprecision and inconsistency; Analysis 3.4).”

    From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Sperber 2000

  • In Sperber 2000, after the second administration the difference was still significant but smaller (P = 0.03).

    “After the second administration the difference was still significant, but smaller (P = 0.03).”

    From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Sperber 2000

  • In Sperber 2000, two hours after the first dose there was a clear decrease (P = 0.002) in nasal congestion score in favour of active treatment.

    “Two hours after the first dose there was a clear decrease (P = 0.002) in favour of active treatment.”

    From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Sperber 2000

  • There was no significant effect of an analgesic-decongestive combination on the subjective severity of sneezing.

    “There was no significant effect.”

    From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Sperber 2000

  • In Sperber 2000, the difference was at most 1.06 severity points on a five-point scale.

    “in the second trial of Sperber 2000, the difference was at most 1.06 severity points on a five‐point scale”

    From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Sperber 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sperber, S. J.
Affiliations
Hackensack University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sperber, S. J.
Venue
Archives of Family Medicine
Publisher
CLOCKSS Archive
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
9
Issue
10
Pages
979-985
ISSN
1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archfami.9.10.979
OpenAlex
W1990035536
Semantic Scholar
29d2e772fa25a8e48057b15499aadc79fbfeef66
Cited by
28
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Herbal Medicine Research Studies
Keywords
pseudoephedrine, paracetamol, common cold, sinus pain, nasal congestion, headache, rhinorrhea, combination therapy, symptom relief, adverse effects
MeSH terms
Acetaminophen, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Common Cold, Double-Blind Method, Drug Combinations, Ephedrine, Facial Pain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paranasal Sinuses, Treatment Outcome, Adrenergic Agents, Analgesics, Non-Narcotic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review