Over-the-counter (OTC) medications for acute cough in children and adults in community settings
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral OTC cough preparations for acute cough in children and adults in community settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 2010 to March 2014), LILACS (January 2010 to March 2014), Web of Science (January 2010 to March 2014) and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in community settings. We considered all cough outcomes; secondary outcomes of interest were adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant citations, extracted data and assessed study quality. We performed quantitative analysis where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Due to the small numbers of trials in each category, the limited quantitative data available and the marked differences between trials in terms of participants, interventions and outcome measurement, we felt that pooling of the results was inappropriate.We included 29 trials (19 in adults, 10 in children) involving 4835 people (3799 adults and 1036 children). All studies were placebo-controlled RCTs. However, assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was limited by poor reporting, particularly for the earlier studies.In the adult studies, six trials compared antitussives with placebo and had variable results. Three trials compared the expectorant guaifenesin with placebo; one indicated significant benefit, whereas the other two did not. One trial found that a mucolytic reduced cough frequency and symptom scores. Two studies examined antihistamine-decongestant combinations and found conflicting results. Four studies compared other combinations of drugs with placebo and indicated some benefit in reducing cough symptoms. Three trials found that antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms.In the child studies, antitussives (data from three studies), antihistamines (data from three studies), antihistamine-decongestants (two studies) and antitussive/bronchodilator combinations (one study) were no more effective than placebo. No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. The results of one trial favoured active treatment with mucolytics over placebo. One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups and both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46% and 56% of children compared to 21% of children in the placebo group. One new trial indicated that three types of honey were more effective than placebo over a three-day period.Twenty-one studies reported adverse effects. There was a wide range across studies, with higher numbers of adverse effects in participants taking preparations containing antihistamines and dextromethorphan. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. Availability, dosing and duration of use of over-the-counter cough medicines vary significantly in different countries. Many studies were poorly reported making assessment of risk of bias difficult and studies were also very different from each other, making evaluation of overall efficacy difficult. There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. This should be taken into account when considering prescribing antihistamines and centrally active antitussive agents in children; drugs that are known to have the potential to cause serious harm.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Smith 2014 found no good evidence of effectiveness of OTC medication for acute cough, but results of trials were conflicting.
“Smith 2014 found that there was no good evidence of effectiveness of OTC medication for acute cough, but that results of trials were conflicting.”
From Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold (2022) · cites this paper as Smith 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Mizoguchi, H., Wilson, A., Jerdack, G. R., Hull, J. D., Goodale, M., Grender, J. M., & Tyler, B. A. (2007) · Int. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.5414/cpp45230 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Heikkinen, T., & Järvinen, A. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12162-9 · Cited by 1,067 · see citing works
Little, P., Stuart, B., Francis, N., Douglas, E., Tonkin-Crine, S., Anthierens, S., Cals, J. W., Melbye, H., Santer, M., Moore, M., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60994-0 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Oral antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations for the common cold
De Sutter, A. I., Eriksson, L., & van Driel, M. L. (2022) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004976.pub4 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smith, S. M., Schroeder, K., & Fahey, T.
- Affiliations
- Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-11-24
- Volume
- 2014
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- CD001831-CD001831
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC7061814
- OpenAlex
- W1935276935
- Cited by
- 533
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 7.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Research Board (HRC-2014-1)
- University of Bristol
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Pediatric health and respiratory diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
- Keywords
- acute cough, over-the-counter drugs, upper respiratory tract infection, antitussive agents, guaifenesin, expectorants, mucolytic agents, antihistamines, cough frequency, symptom scores, adverse effects, children, adults, community settings, risk of bias, treatment effectiveness, cost-effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Administration, Oral, Adult, Ambulatory Care, Antitussive Agents, Child, Cough, Drug Therapy, Combination, Nonprescription Drugs, Expectorants, Histamine H1 Antagonists, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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