↓ Skip to main content

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the common cold

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the common cold
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006362.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soo Young Kim, Yoon-Jung Chang, Hye Min Cho, Ye-Won Hwang, Yoo Sun Moon

Abstract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used for the treatment of pain and fever associated with the common cold. To determine the effects of NSAIDs versus placebo (and other treatments) on signs and symptoms of the common cold, and to determine any adverse effects of NSAIDs in people with the common cold. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 4, April), (January 1966 to April week 3, 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2015), CINAHL (January 1982 to April 2015) and ProQuest Digital Dissertations (January 1938 to April 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of NSAIDS in adults or children with the common cold. Four review authors extracted data. We subdivided trials into placebo-controlled RCTs and head-to-head comparisons of NSAIDs. We extracted and summarised data on global analgesic effects (such as reduction of headache and myalgia), non-analgesic effects (such as reduction of nasal symptoms, cough, sputum and sneezing) and side effects. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). We pooled data using the fixed-effect and random-effects models. We included nine RCTs with 1069 participants, describing 37 comparisons: six were NSAIDs versus placebo and three were NSAIDs versus NSAIDs. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was mixed. In a pooled analysis, NSAIDs did not significantly reduce the total symptom score (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.24, three studies, random-effects model), or duration of colds (MD -0.23, 95% CI -1.75 to 1.29, two studies, random-effects model). For respiratory symptoms, cough did not improve (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.56, two studies, random-effects model) but the sneezing score significantly improved (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.12, two studies, random-effects model). For outcomes related to the analgesic effects of NSAIDs (headache, ear pain, and muscle and joint pain) the treatment produced significant benefits. The risk of adverse effects was not high with NSAIDs (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 17.03, two studies, random-effects model) but it is difficult to conclude that such drugs are no different from placebo. The quality of the evidence may be estimated as 'moderate' because of imprecision. The major limitations of this review are that the results of the studies are quite diverse and the number of studies for one result is quite small. NSAIDs are somewhat effective in relieving the discomfort caused by a cold but there is no clear evidence of their effect in easing respiratory symptoms. The balance of benefit and harms needs to be considered when using NSAIDs for colds.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Other 45 34%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 14 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#332,988
of 13,982,034 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#875
of 10,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,891
of 248,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,982,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 248,876 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.