Cited by 17Respiratory viral infections researchPediatric health and respiratory diseasesHerbal Medicine Research Studies

Corticosteroids for the common cold

Hayward, Gail, Thompson, Matthew J, Perera, Rafael, Del Mar, Chris B, Glasziou, Paul P, Heneghan, Carl J·2012·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self-limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work days. Current symptomatic treatments have limited benefit. Corticosteroids are an effective treatment in other upper respiratory tract infections and their anti-inflammatory effects may also be beneficial in the common cold. OBJECTIVES: To compare corticosteroids versus usual care for the common cold on clinical response rates in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 5 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) 2012, Issue 4 and the NHS Health Economics Database 2012, Issue 5; MEDLINE (1948 to May week 2, 2012) and EMBASE (January 2010 to May 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing corticosteroids to placebo or to standard clinical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We were unable to perform meta-analysis and instead analysed results using narrative description of the available evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials (253 participants). Both compared intranasal corticosteroids to placebo; no trials studied oral corticosteroids. No benefit of intranasal corticosteroids was demonstrated for duration or severity of symptoms. In one trial of 54 participants, the number of symptomatic days was 10.3 in the placebo group, compared to 10.7 in those using intranasal corticosteroids (P = 0.72). A second trial of 199 participants reported no significant differences in duration of symptoms. There were no differences reported in terms of: adverse events; complications (one case of sinusitis, one case of acute otitis media, both in corticosteroid groups); presence of rhinovirus in nasal aspirates; or treatment for secondary infections. Neither trial reported our primary outcome measure of percentage of participants with resolution at different time points. A lack of comparable outcome measures meant we were unable to combine the data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the use of intranasal corticosteroids for symptomatic relief from the common cold. However, there were only two trials and limited statistical power. Further large randomised placebo-controlled trials in adults and children are required to answer this question.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd008116.pub2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 highlights the lack of evidence to support intranasal corticosteroid use in NO caused by the common cold.

    “One systematic review highlights the lack of evidence to support their use in NO caused by the common cold [133].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [133]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayward, G., Thompson, M. J., Perera, R., Del Mar, C. B., Glasziou, P. P., & Heneghan, C. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Bond University (AU)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2012-08-15
Issue
8
Pages
CD008116-CD008116
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2790140112
Cited by
17
References
3
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2009-13-015)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Pediatric health and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Herbal Medicine Research Studies
Keywords
common cold, corticosteroids, intranasal corticosteroids, upper respiratory tract infection, symptom duration, symptom severity, rhinovirus, adverse events, sinusitis, acute otitis media, children, adults, symptomatic treatment, anti-inflammatory therapy, usual care comparison, treatment efficacy and safety, health-related quality of life
MeSH terms
Fluticasone, Administration, Intranasal, Adrenal Cortex Hormones, Adult, Androstadienes, Beclomethasone, Common Cold, Female, Humans, Male, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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