↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of iota-carrageenan nasal spray versus placebo in early treatment of the common cold in adults: the ICICC trial

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, October 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Efficacy and safety of iota-carrageenan nasal spray versus placebo in early treatment of the common cold in adults: the ICICC trial
Published in
Respiratory Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12931-015-0281-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Eccles, B. Winther, S.L. Johnston, P. Robinson, M. Trampisch, S. Koelsch

Abstract

Iota-carrageenan (I-C) is active against respiratory viruses in vitro and was effective as nasal spray in three previous clinical trials. The current trial served to further investigate I-C in patients with early common cold symptoms. This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase IV trial was conducted in 200 adult patients with self-diagnosed colds of <48 h' duration that were confirmed by baseline cold symptom scores. Patients were to self-administer 0.12 % I-C or placebo spray (NaCl 0.5 %) four times daily for four to ten days and record symptom information for ten days. Common respiratory viruses were quantified by RT-PCR during pretreatment and on Day 3 or 4. The primary endpoint was the mean total symptom score (TSS) of eight cold symptoms on Days 2-4 (TSS2-4). Patients in both treatment groups had similar baseline TSSs (mean TSS: 6.75 for I-C and 6.79 for placebo). Viruses were detected in baseline samples from 53 of 98 I-C patients (54.1 %) and 54 of 97 placebo patients (55.7 %). Mean ± SE for TSS2-4 was 5.78 ± 0.25 for I-C patients and 6.39 ± 0.25 for placebo (p = 0.0895). Exploratory analyses after unblinding (TSS2-4 excluding a patient with aberrantly high symptom scores [TSS2-4, ex 1pt]; mean of TSS over Days 1-4 [TSS1-4]; change in TSS1-4 relative to baseline [TSS1-4, rel]) demonstrated treatment differences in favor of I-C (p = 0.0364, p = 0.0495 and p = 0.0421, respectively). For patients with quantifiable rhinovirus/enterovirus at baseline, there was a trend towards greater reduction of virus load at Day 3 or 4 (p = 0.0958; I-C: 90.2 % reduction in viral load; placebo: 72.0 %). Treatments were well tolerated with no differences in adverse event rates. The primary endpoint did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between I-C and placebo but showed a trend towards I-C benefit. Exploratory analyses indicated significant reduction of cold symptoms in the I-C group relative to placebo during the first four days when symptoms were most severe, and also substantiated I-C's activity against rhinovirus/enterovirus. NCT01944631 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 11%
Chemistry 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 24 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 11 May 2022.
All research outputs
#955,511
of 21,338,015 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#61
of 2,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,977
of 267,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,338,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 267,737 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 99% of its contemporaries.