Cited by 10Respiratory viral infections researchHerbal Medicine Research StudiesPediatric health and respiratory diseases

Efficacy and tolerability of ebastine 10 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg in the symptomatic relief of the common cold

Robert, M, Llorens, M, Garcı́a, E, Luria, X·2004·European Journal of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background: The objective of this multicenter, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of ebastine 10 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg once daily after 3 days of treatment in the symptomatic relief of patients with a common cold. Methods: The principal variable studied was the evaluation of overall efficacy and secondary variables were improvement of the patient, evolution of symptoms, disposition of the patient to take the medication again, and variation in nasal peak flow. Results: The percentage of subjects showing a good or excellent treatment efficacy was significantly higher in the group treated with ebastine plus pseudoephedrine (75.8%) than in the group treated with placebo (57.6%; p<0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found in favor of ebastine plus pseudoephedrine when comparing the changes in the sum of scores for nasal and ocular symptoms (p<0.006) or total symptoms (p<0.0016). The tolerability of the active treatment studied was good; that is, no significant differences were found between ebastine 10 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg and placebo. Most adverse events described were slight or moderate in intensity, and no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The combination of ebastine 10 mg immediate release and pseudoephedrine 120 mg sustained release was found effective in the symptomatic treatment of patients suffering from a common cold and as safe…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejim.2004.03.009

Cites

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 Robert 2004, no clear difference was seen between active treatment and placebo in peak nasal flow evaluated before and after three days of treatment.

    “In Robert 2004, participants' peak nasal flow was evaluated before and after three days of treatment. No clear difference was seen between the active treatment and placebo.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 10

Authors
Robert, M., Llorens, M., Garcı́a, E., & Luria, X.
Affiliations
Almirall (Spain) (ES)
Corresponding author
Robert, M
Venue
European Journal of Internal Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
242-247
ISSN
0953-6205 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092522267
Cited by
10
References
18
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
ebastine, pseudoephedrine, common cold, symptom relief, nasal congestion, ocular symptoms, drug tolerability, adverse events

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