Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002 Feb 9;324(7333):329-31.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7333.329.

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults

Knut Schroeder  1 , Tom Fahey
Affiliations

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults

Knut Schroeder et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether over the counter cough medicines are effective for acute cough in adults.

Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Search of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register in all languages.

Included studies: All randomised controlled trials that compared oral over the counter cough preparations with placebo in adults with acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection in ambulatory settings and that had cough symptoms as an outcome.

Results: 15 trials involving 2166 participants met all the inclusion criteria. Antihistamines seemed to be no better than placebo. There was conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo.

Conclusion: Over the counter cough medicines for acute cough cannot be recommended because there is no good evidence for their effectiveness. Even when trials had significant results, the effect sizes were small and of doubtful clinical relevance. Because of the small number of trials in each category, the results have to be interpreted cautiously.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Evaluation of trials for inclusion in review
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Moss C. OTC Directory 2001/2002. London: Proprietory Association of Great Britain; 2001. Putting self-care into your consultation.
    1. Banks I. The NHS Direct healthcare guide. London: Stationery Office; 2001.
    1. Royal College of General Practitioners; Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; Department of Health. Morbidity statistics from general practice. Fourth national study 1991-1992. London: HMSO; 1992.
    1. Proprietary Association of Great Britain. Annual review and report. London: PAGB; 2000.
    1. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, Bennett FM. Appropriate use of antitussives and protussives. A practical review. Drugs. 1993;46:80–91. - PubMed

Publication types