Cited by 39Respiratory viral infections researchHerbal Medicine Research StudiesNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of a single dose of phenylephrine 10 mg compared with placebo in adults with acute nasal congestion due to the common cold

Kollar, Christine, Schneider, Heinz, Waksman, Joel, Krusinska, Eva·2007·Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract

Background Although nonprescription oral phenylephrine 10 mg has been judged "generally recognized as safe and effective" by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its efficacy as a nasal decongestant has been questioned. Objective This study assessed available data on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine 10 mg as a nasal decongestant. Methods Three sources were used to identify potentially relevant publications--the bibliography of the phenylephrine section of the 1976 FDA monograph on over-the-counter cold, cough, allergy, bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic products; a 2004 Cochrane Review of nasal decongestants for the common cold; and a search of MEDLINE from 1966 through January 2007 using the term phenylephrine nasal. To be included in the analyses, studies had to have a single-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled design; involve an orally administered product in which phenylephrine 10 mg was the sole active ingredient; enroll patients with acute nasal congestion due to the common cold; evaluate nasal airway resistance (NAR) as the efficacy end point; and have sufficient data in the study report to allow reanalysis and/or meta-analysis of phenylephrine 10 mg versus placebo. Reanalysis of individual studies and fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Statistical significance at 30 and 60 minutes after dosing (the primary time points) and a >or=20% reduction in NAR from baseline were considered indicative of a clinically meaningful difference. Resu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.05.021

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • A meta-analysis demonstrated the effect of oral phenylephrine on acute nasal congestion.

    “A meta-analysis also demonstrated this effect with oral administration of phenylephrine [126].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [126]

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kollar, C., Schneider, H., Waksman, J., & Krusinska, E.
Affiliations
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US)
  • Consumer Healthcare Products Association (US)
Venue
Clinical Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
1057-1070
ISSN
0149-2918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032918645
Cited by
39
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  • University of Kansas
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Herbal Medicine Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
nasal decongestants, common cold, nasal resistance, over-the-counter cold remedies, single oral dose, placebo comparison, drug efficacy, crossover design, over-the-counter drug regulation
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Administration, Oral, Adult, Common Cold, Humans, Phenylephrine, Nasal Decongestants, Nasal Obstruction, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies

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