↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

11 X users
2 Facebook pages
12 Wikipedia pages


42 Dimensions

Readers on

245 Mendeley
Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004783.pub5
Pubmed ID

Ludovic Reveiz, Andrés Felipe Cardona


This is an update of the original review published in 2005. Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment often targets symptoms. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic therapies in adults with acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014) and BIOSIS (1980 to December 2014). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo for acute laryngitis. The main outcome was objective voice scores. Two review authors independently extracted and synthesised data. We included three RCTs (351 participants) that had moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. We downgraded the studies because of limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision and inconsistency of results. We included a new trial presented only as a conference abstract in this update.In one study of acute laryngitis in adults, 100 participants were randomised to receive penicillin V (800 mg twice daily for five days) or an identical placebo. A recording of each patient reading a standardised text was made at the first visit, during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by participants and found no significant differences.One study investigated erythromycin for acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months did not significantly differ between the groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms (slight, moderate and severe) as judged by participants (P value = 0.042). However, the rates of participants having improved voice disturbance (subjective symptoms) at one and two weeks were not significantly different among groups. Comparing erythromycin and placebo groups on the rate of persistence of cough at two weeks, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.97, P value = 0.04) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5.87 (95% CI 3.09 to 65.55). We calculated a RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, P value = 0.034) and a NNTB of 3.76 (95% CI 2.27 to 13.52; P value = 0.01) for the subjective voice scores at one week.A third trial from Russia included 145 patients with acute laryngitis symptoms. Participants were randomised to three treatment groups: Group 1: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation); Group 2: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation) plus clarithromycin (250 mg twice daily for seven days); Group 3: no treatment. Clinical cure rates were measured at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. The authors reported significant differences in the rates of clinical cure at day 5 ± 1 favouring fusafungine (one trial; 93 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.20; P value = 0.04) and fusafungine plus clarithromycin (one trial 97 participants; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.16; P value = 0.05) when compared to no treatment. However, no significant differences were found at days 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. Also, no significant differences were found when comparing fusafungine to fusafungine plus clarithromycin at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. Antibiotics do not appear to be effective in treating acute laryngitis when assessing objective outcomes. They appear to be beneficial for some subjective outcomes. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. Fusafungine could increase the cure rate at day five. The included RCTs had important methodological problems and these modest benefits from antibiotics may not outweigh their cost, adverse effects or negative consequences for antibiotic resistance patterns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 243 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 12%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 106 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 6%
Psychology 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 106 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 June 2024.
All research outputs
of 26,362,953 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 282,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,362,953 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 282,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.