↓ Skip to main content

WITHDRAWN: Zinc for the common cold.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
33 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
WITHDRAWN: Zinc for the common cold.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001364.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Singh, Meenu, Das, Rashmi R, Singh M; Das RR

Abstract

The common cold is one of the most widespread illnesses and is a leading cause of visits to the doctor and absence from school and work. Trials conducted in high-income countries since 1984 investigating the role of zinc for the common cold symptoms have had mixed results. Inadequate treatment masking and reduced bioavailability of zinc from some formulations have been cited as influencing results. To assess whether zinc (irrespective of the zinc salt or formulation used) is efficacious in reducing the incidence, severity and duration of common cold symptoms. In addition, we aimed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in results obtained and to assess their clinical significance. In this updated review, we searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to January 2013), CINAHL (1981 to January 2013), Web of Science (1985 to January 2013), LILACS (1982 to January 2013), WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using zinc for at least five consecutive days to treat, or for at least five months to prevent the common cold. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Five trials were identified in the updated searches in January 2013 and two of them did not meet our inclusion criteria. We included 16 therapeutic trials (1387 participants) and two preventive trials (394 participants). Intake of zinc was associated with a significant reduction in the duration (days) (mean difference (MD) -1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.72 to -0.34) (P = 0.003) (I(2) statistic = 89%) but not the severity of common cold symptoms (MD -1.06, 95% CI -2.36 to 0.23) (P = 0.11) (I(2) statistic = 84%). The proportion of participants who were symptomatic after seven days of treatment was significantly smaller (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00) (P = 0.05) than those in the control, (I(2 )statistic = 75%). The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of developing a cold (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.88) (P = 0.006) (I(2) statistic = 88%), school absence (P = 0.0003) and prescription of antibiotics (P < 0.00001) was lower in the zinc group. Overall adverse events (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.09) (P = 0.002), bad taste (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11) (P < 0.00001) and nausea (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.23) (P = 0.002) were higher in the zinc group. The very high heterogeneity means that the averaged estimates must be viewed with caution. Zinc administered within 24 hours of onset of symptoms reduces the duration of common cold symptoms in healthy people but some caution is needed due to the heterogeneity of the data. As the zinc lozenges formulation has been widely studied and there is a significant reduction in the duration of cold at a dose of ≥ 75 mg/day, for those considering using zinc it would be best to use it at this dose throughout the cold. Regarding prophylactic zinc supplementation, currently no firm recommendation can be made because of insufficient data. When using zinc lozenges (not as syrup or tablets) the likely benefit has to be balanced against side effects, notably a bad taste and nausea.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 33%
Other 1 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 67%
Computer Science 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#121,941
of 8,360,145 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#371
of 8,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,252
of 208,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,360,145 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.