↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antihistamines for the common cold

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
483 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 Mendeley
Title
Antihistamines for the common cold
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009345.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

An IM De Sutter, Avadhesh Saraswat, Mieke L van Driel

Abstract

The common cold is an upper respiratory tract infection, most commonly caused by a rhinovirus. It affects people of all age groups and although in most cases it is self limiting, the common cold still causes significant morbidity. Antihistamines are commonly offered over the counter to relieve symptoms for patients affected by the common cold, however there is not much evidence of their efficacy. To assess the effects of antihistamines on the common cold. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to July week 4, 2015), EMBASE (2010 to August 2015), CINAHL (1981 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015) and Biosis Previews (1985 to August 2015). We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines as monotherapy for the common cold. We excluded any studies with combination therapy or using antihistamines in patients with an allergic component in their illness. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. We included 18 RCTs, which were reported in 17 publications (one publication reports on two trials) with 4342 participants (of which 212 were children) suffering from the common cold, both naturally occurring and experimentally induced. The interventions consisted of an antihistamine as monotherapy compared with placebo. In adults there was a short-term beneficial effect of antihistamines on severity of overall symptoms: on day one or two of treatment 45% had a beneficial effect with antihistamines versus 38% with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92). However, there was no difference between antihistamines and placebo in the mid term (three to four days) to long term (six to 10 days). When evaluating individual symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, there was some beneficial effect of the sedating antihistamines compared to placebo (e.g. rhinorrhoea on day three: mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06 on a four- or five-point severity scale; sneezing on day three: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.20 on a four-point severity scale), but this effect is clinically non-significant. Adverse events such as sedation were more commonly reported with sedating antihistamines although the differences were not statistically significant. Only two trials included children and the results were conflicting. The majority of the trials had a low risk of bias although some lacked sufficient trial quality information. Antihistamines have a limited short-term (days one and two of treatment) beneficial effect on severity of overall symptoms but not in the mid to long term. There is no clinically significant effect on nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea or sneezing. Although side effects are more common with sedating antihistamines, the difference is not statistically significant. There is no evidence of effectiveness of antihistamines in children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 483 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 229 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Student > Master 27 12%
Researcher 25 11%
Other 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 49 21%
Unknown 57 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 71 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 361. 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 31 August 2021.
All research outputs
#54,303
of 19,214,062 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 11,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,125
of 385,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,214,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 385,730 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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.