Cited by 134Respiratory viral infections researchHerbal Medicine Research StudiesPediatric health and respiratory diseases

Nasal decongestants for the common cold

Taverner, David, Latte, G. Jenny·2007·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background The common cold is a major and recurrent cause of morbidity, on average affecting children and adults two or more times each year. Nasal congestion is its commonest symptom and many therapies are marketed for its relief. There is no meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials on the effects of nasal decongestants in the common cold. Objectives To assess the efficacy of nasal decongestants at reducing the symptom of nasal congestion in adults and children with the common cold and to identify possible adverse effects associated with their use. Search strategy In this updated review in 2006, the following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1996 to September 2006); OLDMEDLINE (1951 to 1965); EMBASE (1980 to Week 36, 2006). We contacted known principal investigators and pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria Randomised, placebo controlled trials of single-active oral and topical nasal decongestants in adults and children suffering from common cold. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (DT and GJL) independently extracted data. All outcomes variables were continuous. Subjective outcomes were normalised to a common scale and a weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated. A standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for the objective outcomes. Main results Seven studies in adults, but none in children, fitted all inclusion criteria. There was…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001953.pub3This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

0 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?

  • One systematic review showed that a single intranasal dose significantly improved acute nasal congestion and reduced nasal airway resistance in adults with common cold.

    “One systematic review showed that a single intranasal dose significantly improved acute nasal congestion and reduced nasal airway resistance in adults with common cold [125].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [125]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taverner, D., & Latte, G. J.
Affiliations
Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2007-01-24
Issue
1
Pages
CD001953-CD001953
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111275099
Cited by
134
References
59
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Status
Retracted
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Herbal Medicine Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Pediatric health and respiratory diseases
Keywords
nasal decongestants, common cold, nasal congestion, pseudoephedrine, adverse effects, insomnia, children, adults, symptom relief, repeated dosing, topical decongestants, oral decongestants, drug safety in children, rhinovirus infection, pharmacodynamics
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Common Cold, Female, Humans, Male, Nasal Decongestants, 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