CHEST Original Research

SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF CHEST DISEASES

Efficacy and Tolerability of Treatments for

Chronic Cough
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
William S. Yancy Jr, MD, MHSc; Douglas C. McCrory, MD, MHS;
Remy R. Coeytaux, MD, PhD; Kristine M. Schmit, MD, MPH; Alex R. Kemper, MD, MPH;
Adam Goode, PhD, PT, DPT; Victor Hasselblad, PhD; Brooke L. Heidenfelder, PhD;
and Gillian D. Sanders, PhD

Background: Understanding the comparative effectiveness of treatments for patients with unex-
plained or refractory cough is important to increase awareness of proven therapies and their
potential adverse effects in this unique population.
Methods: We performed a literature search for English-language studies published up to June
2012 that compared symptomatic therapies for chronic cough. Two investigators screened each
abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted data, and rated quality. Meta-analysis with
random-effects models was used to summarize effects of treatments.
Results: We identified 49 studies (3,067 patients) comprising 68 therapeutic comparisons. Of the
studied agents, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives had demonstrated
efficacy for chronic cough in adults. Compared with placebo, effect sizes (standardized mean
differences for cough severity and rate ratios for cough frequency) for opioids were 0.55 (95% CI,
0.38-0.72; P , .0001) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P 5 .0260), respectively. For dextromethorphan,
effect sizes were 0.37 (95% CI, 0.19-0.56; P 5 .0008) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P 5 .0248), respec-
tively. The overall strength of evidence was limited by inconsistency and imprecision of results and
by small numbers of direct comparisons. Nonpharmacologic therapies and the management of cough
in children were infrequently studied.
Conclusions: Although evidence is limited, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitus-
sives demonstrated efficacy for treating chronic cough in adults. There is a need for further studies
in patients with unexplained or refractory cough as well as for more systematic study designs,
assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and reporting. CHEST 2013; 144(6):1827–1838

Abbreviations: RR 5 rate ratio; SMD 5 standardized mean difference

Cough is the most common complaint for which

patients seek medical attention in the United States,
accounting for . 26 million office visits annually.1
Chronic cough, defined as lasting . 4 weeks in
patients aged , 14 years or for . 8 weeks in patients
aged ⱖ 14 years,2,3 is responsible for up to 38% of
pulmonary-related outpatient visits.4,5 For adult patients
in whom a specific cause of chronic cough is not easily
identified, guidelines published by the American Col-
lege of Chest Physicians in 2006 recommend an empir-
ical approach to diagnosis and treatment.6,7 For children,
however, there is little consensus regarding the appro-
priate approach because data on medication safety
and effectiveness are few.8-12
Up to 46% of patients with chronic cough do not have
a clear etiology despite a thorough diagnostic investi-
gation.13 Patients with such unexplained cough or cough
that is refractory to treatment of underlying etiologies
may receive therapies aimed simply at the symptom of
cough. Symptomatic treatment consists of antitussive
therapy to decrease cough frequency and severity or
protussive therapy to improve clearance of mucus.
The safety and effectiveness of many of these ther-
apies is uncertain, however, particularly in the setting
of chronic cough. The purpose of this review is to
evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatments
for the symptom of chronic cough in adult and pedi-
atric patients with unexplained or refractory cough.

journal.publications.chestnet.org CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1827

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Materials and Methods
This article summarizes a comparative effectiveness review
commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.14
Further details of the topic refinement, literature search, methods,
and conclusions can be found in the full report.
Literature Search and Study Selection
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Data-
base of Systematic Reviews through June 2012 to identify relevant
published literature. We sought additional articles from reference
lists of key primary and review articles, content experts, and the
US Food and Drug Administration device registration studies and
new drug applications. Studies eligible for inclusion were English-
language, prospective, comparative (vs placebo or active therapy)
assessments of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies
aimed at treating the symptom of cough in patients with unexplained
or refractory chronic cough (persisting 4 weeks if aged , 14 years
or 8 weeks if aged ⱖ 14 years or as stated by study authors). Arti-
cles were excluded if (1) the therapy was directed at an underlying
etiology, (2) cough resulted from invasive respiratory tract instru-
mentation, (3) the only outcomes assessed were induced sputum
or bronchoprovocation challenge, (4) the therapy was not commer-
cially available globally or had been withdrawn from the US mar-
ket or rejected by the US Food and Drug Administration, or
(5) the study was a case-control design.
Forms were designed and completed by DistillerSR (Evidence
Partners Incorporated) to standardize the data collection. For eli-
gible studies, an investigator abstracted data and assigned quality
ratings. A second investigator reviewed the completed abstraction
form to check for accuracy and completeness and independently
assigned quality ratings. Disagreements were resolved by consen-
sus or by obtaining a third reviewer’s opinion if consensus could
not be reached.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
We considered meta-analysis for comparisons where at least
three studies reported the same outcome. We considered measures
of cough severity, regardless of the scale used, to be similar enough
to combine estimating effect sizes as standardized mean differ-
ences (SMDs). Cough frequency data were analyzed with the use
of the rate ratio (RR) as an effect size measure.
Manuscript received February 28, 2013; revision accepted July 8,
2013.
Affiliations: From the Department of Medicine (Drs Yancy,
McCrory, and Sanders), Doctor of Physical Therapy Division
(Drs Coeytaux and Goode), Department of Community and Family
Medicine (Dr Schmit), Department of Pediatrics (Dr Kemper),
and Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics (Dr Hasselblad),
Duke University School of Medicine; Center for Health Services
Research in Primary Care (Drs Yancy and McCrory), Veterans
Affairs Medical Center; and Duke Evidence-based Practice Center
(Drs McCrory, Coeytaux, Heidenfelder, and Sanders), Duke Clini-
cal Research Institute, Durham, NC.
Funding/Support: This project was funded by the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), US Department
of Health and Human Services [Contract 290-2007-10066-I].
Dr Goode is supported by the AHRQ K-12 Comparative Effec-
tiveness Career Development Award [Grant HS19479-01].
Correspondence to: William S. Yancy Jr, MD, MHSc, VA Medical
Center (152), 508 Fulton St, Durham, NC 27705; e-mail: yancy006@
mc.duke.edu
© 2013 American College of Chest Physicians. Reproduction
of this article is prohibited without written permission from the
American College of Chest Physicians. See online for more details.
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0490
1828
Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014
We used random-effects models to quantitatively synthesize
the available evidence (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2
software; Biostat, Inc). We tested for heterogeneity with graphic
displays and test statistics (Q and I2 statistics). We reported P values
for Q statistics as follows: .15 . P . .05 as some evidence of het-
erogeneity, .05 . P . .0001 as evidence of heterogeneity, and
P , .0001 as evidence of extreme heterogeneity.
We performed a mixed treatment meta-analysis that enabled
us to incorporate data from placebo comparisons and head-to-
head comparisons. This model, fitted with the use of SAS PROC
NLMIXED (SAS Institute Inc), estimated the effect sizes (rela-
tive to placebo) for each treatment. For treatments that could not
be included in the mixed-treatment meta-analysis, we calculated
effect sizes from data reported in the studies (raw data, means and
variances, or test statistics) to present results in comparable terms.
Results
Figure 1 shows the flow of literature through the
search and screening process. Forty-three articles
describing 49 separate studies met the inclusion cri-
teria (Table 1).15-57 One article15 reported results for
six separate studies, whereas another37 described results
for two separate studies. Only three studies39,50,56 were
performed in children. The majority of studies were
rated fair in quality (n 5 30, 61%), 11 were good in
quality, and eight were poor in quality.
A total of 3,067 participants were included across
trials. A variety of causes for chronic cough were rep-
resented, including bronchitis, COPD, asthma, upper
airway cough syndrome, fibrosis, neoplasm, TB, cystic
fibrosis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and unex-
plained cough. Sample sizes were relatively small, rang-
ing from eight to 214 participants. A variety of therapies
were studied; these can be broadly categorized into
antitussive, protussive, and nonantitussive and nonpro-
tussive therapies. Antitussives were further subcate-
gorized into opioid, anesthetic, and nonopioid and
nonanesthetic therapies. Patient-centered outcomes
data for all studies are presented in e-Table 1.
Studies Involving Opioid Antitussives
We found 29 comparisons within 17 studies involv-
ing opioid antitussives. Of 11 comparisons of opioids
with placebo,18-20,24,33,35,43,44,46,47,57 eight showed opioids
to be more effective for decreasing cough frequency
and cough severity and improving quality of life (Leic-
ester Cough Questionnaire).18-20,24,33,35,44,57 No one opi-
oid was superior to another, although codeine had a
dose-response improvement in cough severity and fre-
quency,44 and viminol was effective at reducing cough
severity at a higher dose but not at a lower dose.43
Among studies comparing opioids with other active
agents, two compared opioids with anesthetic antitus-
sives, and neither class of medication showed superi-
ority.25,46 Codeine derivatives were also compared with
a variety of nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives
with mixed results. Compared with dextromethorphan,
Original Research
 Figure 1. Literature flow diagram. KQ 5 key question; RCT 5 randomized controlled trial.

codeine was less effective in one study,33 comparable
in another,20 and more effective in two, but the latter
two studies compared standard-dose codeine to low-
dose dextromethorphan.18,19 Two studies comparing
codeine with glaucine reported conflicting results.24,27
Codeine or dihydrocodeine were similar in effective-
ness to moguisteine (one study17), levodropropizine
(one study32), and levocloperastine (two studies [one
article]15).
In terms of tolerability, two of 39 patients taking
codeine 30 mg in one study discontinued the medica-
tion because of adverse effects.17 In one study, mor-
phine resulted in significant rates of constipation and
drowsiness but was not discontinued because of tol-
erability issues.35 In another study, the percentage of
patients experiencing somnolence while taking dihy-
drocodeine was significantly higher (22%) than in the
group receiving levodropropizine (8%).32 In two studies,
nausea, constipation, and drowsiness were more fre-
quent with codeine than with dextromethorphan.18,19
Studies Involving Anesthetic Antitussives
Anesthetic antitussives were examined in three
studies25,45,46 that included four comparisons. Benzo-
natate was not superior to placebo in one study.46
Chlophedianol and benzonatate were not more effec-
tive than opioids in two studies.25,46 Benzonatate and
Becantyl (sodium 2.6 ditertiarybutylnaphthalene mono-
sulfonate) had similar effects on cough severity in a
comparison trial.45
Studies Involving Nonopioid and Nonanesthetic
Antitussives
We found 31 comparisons in 21 studies involving
nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives. Ten of the
31 comparisons were with opioids and have been
described previously in these results.
Six studies compared dextromethorphan with pla-
cebo.18-20,33,38,41 Four of these showed that dextromethor-
phan was effective at reducing cough severity, frequency,

journal.publications.chestnet.org CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1829

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Table 1—Study Characteristics

Comparison and Quality: Intervention Outcomes

Study/Year No. Patients Description Disease vs Comparator Reported
Antibiotic vs placebo
Yousaf et al55/2010 Good: 30 Chronic cough Unexplained cough Erythromycin vs placebo 1, 2, 4,5
Marchant et al56/2012 Good: 50 Chronic cougha NR Amoxicillin vs placebo 1, 2
Anticholinergic
vs placebo
Holmes et al29/1992 Good: 13 Persistent cough Postviral URTI Ipratropium bromide 1, 11
secondary to inhaler vs placebo
prior URTI
Antihistamine vs antihistamine
Lilienfield et al31/1976 Fair: 13 NR NR Diphenhydramine 2, 10
vs diphenhydramine
Antihistamine vs placebo
Reid39/1989 Fair: 189 Chronic recurrent Asthma Ketotifen vs placebo 1, 4
cough or wheeze
with airway
hyperreactivitya
van Asperen et al50/1992 Good: 112 Chronic cough Unexplained cough Ketotifen vs placebo 1
or wheezea
Tanaka et al48/1996 Fair: 17 Chronic cough UACS Loratadine vs placebo 5
Antitussive (anesthetics)
vs antitussive
(anesthetics)
Simon45/1957 Poor: 59 Chronic asthmatic COPD Benzonatate vs linctussal 1
bronchitis or pulmonary (Bencantyl)
emphysema
Antitussive (anesthetics)
vs antitussive (opiates)
Simon46/1960 Poor: 45 Chronic asthmatic Chronic bronchitis, Benzonatate 1, 2, 7
bronchitis or pulmonary pulmonary emphysema vs dihydrocodeinone
emphysema
Diwan et al25/1982 Fair: 60 Chronic cough COPD, chronic Isoaminile citrate 2, 9
bronchitis, TB vs chlophedianol HCl
Antitussive (anesthetics)
vs placebo
Simon46/1960 Poor: 45 Chronic asthmatic Chronic bronchitis, Benzonatate vs placebo 1, 2, 7
bronchitis or pulmonary pulmonary emphysema
emphysema
Antitussive (nonpharmacologic)
vs placebo
Vertigan et al52/2006 Fair: 87 Chronic cough GERD, asthma, UACS, SPEICH-C vs placebo 1, 8
ACE inhibitor cough
Antitussive (opiates)
vs antitussive (opiates)
Sevelius et al44/1971 Fair: 12 Chronic cough COPD Codeine vs codeine 2
secondary to obstructive
emphysema and chronic
bronchitis
Sabot et al43/1977 Fair: 24 Chronic cough NR Viminol p-hydroxybezoate 1
vs viminol
p-hydroxybezoate
Antitussive (opiates)
vs antitussive (other)
Cass and Frederik18/1953 Fair: 69 Persistent cough NR Codeine 1, 9, 10
vs dextromethorphan
Cass et al19/1954 Poor: 65 Persistent cough NR Codeine 1, 9, 10
vs dextromethorphan
Cass and Frederik20/1956 Fair: 63 Persistent cough NR Codeine 1
vs dextromethorphan
Dierckx et al24/1981 Fair: 38 Chronic cough Asthma, chronic bronchitis, Codeine vs glaucine 1, 2
CF, TB
(Continued)

1830 Original Research

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Table 1—Continued

Comparison and Quality: Intervention Outcomes

Study/Year No. Patients Description Disease vs Comparator Reported
Matthys et al33/1983 Fair : 16 Chronic cough TB, bronchial cancer, Codeine 1, 2, 7
secondary to pulmonary obstructive lung disease vs dextromethorphan
TB, bronchial cancer, or
obstructive lung disease
Gastpar et al27/1984 Poor: 90 Cough secondary to NR Codeine vs glaucine 1, 2
respiratory tract disease
Barnabè et al17/1995 Fair: 113 Dry or slightly productive COPD, unexplained Codeine vs moguisteine 1, 2
cough cough, neoplasm,
pulmonary fibrosis
Luporini et al32/1998 Fair: 124 Persistent, nonproductive Lung cancer Dihydrocodeine rhodanate 1, 3, 8, 10
cough vs levodropropizine
Aliprandi et al15/2004, Fair: 120 Chronic nonproductive COPD, asthma, chronic Codeine 1, 2, 3
study 4 cough secondary to bronchitis vs levocloperastine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Aliprandi et al15/2004, Fair: 60 Chronic nonproductive COPD, chronic bronchitis Codeine 1, 2, 3
study 5 cough secondary to vs levocloperastine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Antitussive (opiates)
vs placebo
Cass and Frederik18/1953 Fair: 69 Persistent cough NR Codeine vs placebo 1, 9, 10
Cass et al19/1954 Poor: 65 Persistent cough NR Codeine vs placebo 1, 9, 10
Cass and Frederik20/1956 Fair: 63 Persistent cough NR Codeine vs placebo 1
Simon46/1960 Poor: 45 Chronic asthmatic Chronic bronchitis, Dihydrocodeinone 1, 2, 7
bronchitis or pulmonary pulmonary emphysema vs placebo
emphysema
Woolf and Rosenberg57/1964 Poor: 10 Chronic cough Chronic bronchitis, Codeine vs placebo 2
emphysema
Sevelius et al44/1971 Fair: 12 Chronic cough secondary COPD Codeine vs placebo 1, 2
to obstructive
emphysema and
chronic bronchitis
Sabot et al43/1977 Fair: 24 Chronic cough NR Viminol p-hydroxybezoate 1
vs placebo
Dierckx et al24/1981 Fair: 38 Chronic cough Asthma, chronic bronchitis, Codeine vs placebo 1, 2
CF, TB
Matthys et al33/1983 Fair: 16 Chronic cough TB, bronchial cancer, Codeine vs placebo 1, 2, 7
secondary to pulmonary obstructive lung disease
TB, bronchial cancer,
or obstructive
lung disease
Smith et al47/2006 Fair: 19 COPD with cough COPD Codeine vs placebo 1, 2, 5, 9, 10
Morice et al35/2007 Poor: 27 Chronic cough Unexplained cough Morphine sulfate 1, 4, 5, 9
vs placebo
Antitussive (other)
vs antitussive (other)
Cass and Frederik20/1956 Fair: 63 Persistent cough NR Dextromethorphan 1
vs dextromethorphan
Rühle et al41/1984 Fair: 24 Chronic cough COPD, asthma, chronic Glaucine 1, 2, 9
bronchitis, TB vs dextromethorphan
Del Donno et al23/1994 Good: 99 Dry or slightly COPD, unexplained cough, Moguisteine
productive cough acute or unspecified vs dextromethorphan
bronchitis, other
respiratory disease
(Continued)

journal.publications.chestnet.org CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1831

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Table 1—Continued

Comparison and Quality: Intervention Outcomes

Study/Year No. Patients Description Disease vs Comparator Reported
Aliprandi et al15/2004 Poor: 50 Chronic nonproductive COPD, asthma, chronic Levocloperastine 1, 2, 3
study 1 cough secondary to bronchitis vs levodropropizine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Aliprandi15/2004 study 2 Fair: 60 Chronic nonproductive COPD, asthma, chronic Levocloperastine 1, 2, 3
cough secondary to bronchitis vs levodropropizine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Aliprandi et al15/2004 Fair: 40 Chronic nonproductive COPD, asthma, chronic Levocloperastine 1, 2, 3
study 3 cough secondary to bronchitis vs levodropropizine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Aliprandi et al15/2004 Fair: 120 Chronic nonproductive Cough of varying origin, Levocloperastine 1, 2, 3
study 6 cough secondary to ACE inhibitor cough vs dl-cloperastine
chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma,
COPD, or medication
Antitussive (other) vs placebo
Cass and Frederik18/1953 Fair: 69 Persistent cough NR Dextromethorphan 1, 9
vs placebo
Cass et al19/1954 Poor: 65 Persistent cough NR Dextromethorphan 1, 9
vs placebo
Cass and Frederik20/1956 Fair: 63 Persistent cough NR Dextromethorphan 1
vs placebo
Vakil et al49/1966 Fair: 70 Chronic cough Chronic bronchitis, TB Pipazethate vs placebo 2
Wójcicki et al54/1975 Good: 32 Cough and nocturnal Chronic bronchitis, Duopect vs placebo 1
paroxysms of coughing CF, TB
Dierckx et al24/1981 Fair: 38 Chronic cough Asthma, chronic bronchitis, Glaucine vs placebo 1, 2
CF, TB
Matthys et al33/1983 Fair: 16 Chronic cough secondary TB, bronchial cancer, Dextromethorphan 1, 2, 7
to pulmonary TB, obstructive lung disease vs placebo
bronchial cancer, or
obstructive lung disease
Rühle et al41/1984 Fair: 24 Chronic cough COPD, asthma, chronic Glaucine vs placebo 1, 2, 9
bronchitis, TB
Rühle et al41/1984 Fair: 24 Chronic cough COPD, asthma, chronic Dextromethorphan 1, 2, 9
bronchitis, TB vs placebo
Aversa et al16/1993 Fair: 73 Chronic lung disease COPD, unexplained Moguisteine vs placebo 2
cough, neoplasm,
pulmonary fibrosis
Ramsay et al38/2008 Good: 42 Chronic cough None Dextromethorphan 1, 4, 5, 9
vs placebo
Mukaida et al36/2011 Fair: 19 Chronic cough secondary COPD Bakumondoto 1, 2
to COPD vs placebo
Antitussive (other)
vs protussive
(expectorants)
Wójcicki et al54/1975 Good: 32 Cough and nocturnal Chronic bronchitis, Duopect vs glycerol 1
paroxysms of coughing CF, TB
Matts34/1977 Fair: 50 Chronic cough Postviral infection Diphenhydramine 7
vs guaifenesin
Bronchodilator
vs bronchodilator
Wei et al53/2010 Fair: 214 Nonproductive or mildly Cough variant asthma, Diprophylline 1, 2, 4
productive cough GERD, nonasthmatic vs methoxyphenamine
eosinophilic bronchitis,
UACS
(Continued)

1832 Original Research

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Table 1—Continued

Comparison and Quality: Intervention Outcomes

Study/Year No. Patients Description Disease vs Comparator Reported
Corticosteroid vs placebo
Chaudhuri et al21/2004 Fair: 88 Chronic cough GERD, asthma, Fluticasone vs placebo 1
UACS, bronchiectasis,
eosinophilic bronchitis,
bronchitis
Ribeiro et al40/2007 Good: 64 Chronic cough Unexplained cough Beclomethasone 1, 2, 3
vs placebo
Rytilä et al42/2008 Fair: 144 Chronic cough Unexplained cough Mometasone vs placebo 1
Protussive (expectorants)
vs placebo
Wójcicki et al54/1975 Good: 32 Cough and nocturnal Chronic bronchitis, Glycerol vs placebo 1, 2
paroxysms of coughing CF, TB
Parvez et al37/1996, Good: 60 Chronic productive COPD, CF Guaifenesin vs placebo 1, 2
study 1 cough secondary to
bronchopulmonary
disease
Protussive (mucolytic)
vs placebo
Jackson et al30/1984 Poor: 121 Chronic bronchitis Chronic bronchitis N-acetylcysteine 1, 8
vs placebo
Guyatt et al28/1987 Fair: 78 Chronic productive cough Chronic bronchitis Ambroxol vs placebo 1
Dueholm et al26/1992 Fair: 51 Chronic bronchitis Chronic bronchitis N-acetylcysteine 1, 4,1 1
vs placebo
Parvez et al37/1996, study 2 Good: 24 Chronic productive COPD, CF Bromhexine vs placebo 1, 2
cough secondary to
bronchopulmonary
disease
Protussive (mucolytic)
vs protussive (mucolytic)
Clarke et al22/1979 Good: 11 Chronic bronchitis Chronic bronchitis 2-mercaptoethane- 2, 6
sulphonate
vs hypertonic saline
Protussive (nonpharmacologic)
vs protussive
(nonpharmacologic)
van Hengstum et al51/1988 Fair: 8 Chronic bronchitis Chronic bronchitis Positive expiratory 6
pressure mask
vs forced expiration
1 5 cough severity; 2 5 cough frequency/resolution; 3 5 nighttime awakenings; 4 5 functional status; 5 5 tussigenic challenge; 6 5 clearance/reten-
tion; 7 5 patient preference; 8 5 global assessment; 9 5 adverse events; 10 5 drowsiness; 11 5 dyspnea. ACE 5 angiotensin-converting enzyme;
CF 5 cystic fibrosis; GERD 5 gastroesophageal reflux disease; HCl 5 hydrogen chloride; NR 5 not reported; SPEICH-C 5 Speech Pathology
Evaluation and Intervention for Chronic Cough; UACS 5 upper airway cough syndrome; URTI 5 upper respiratory tract infection.
aThree studies included only children.

or both.18-20,33 In one study,38 dextromethorphan was
more effective than placebo at reducing cough in
response to tussigenic challenge but not for cough
severity, sleep disturbance, or cough-specific quality
of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire). The one study
finding negative results41 examined a single dose of
dextromethorphan vs placebo.
Two studies of a single dose of glaucine compared
with placebo noted improvements in cough frequency
over 4 to 6 h.24,41 A Chinese herbal medicine called
bakumondoto reduced cough severity and frequency
compared with no treatment over 8 weeks.36 One study
comparing the combination antitussive and expecto-
rant Duopect (narcotine/glycerol) vs either agent alone
or placebo found that Duopect or narcotine improved
cough severity.54 Compared with placebo, moguisteine
reduced cough frequency over 4 days,16 whereas
pipazethate did not.49
In seven studies (including four separate studies
published in Aliprandi et al15), none of the other anti-
tussives was found to be superior to another in head-
to-head comparisons,15,23,41 nor were different doses
of the same agent.20
Studies Involving Protussives
We found 10 comparisons in eight studies (includ-
ing two published in Parvez et al37) involving protus-
sives.22,26,28,30,34,37,54 In one study, guaifenesin reduced
cough intensity and improved ease of expectoration

journal.publications.chestnet.org CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1833

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 in a subgroup of patients who produced a high volume
of sputum.37 In the Duopect study, expectoration was
easier and freer in a higher percentage of patients
taking Duopect or glycerol than narcotine or placebo.54
The combination agent Lotussin (diphenhydramine,
dextromethorphan, ephedrine, guaifenesin) was pre-
ferred by more patients than linctus diphenhydramine.34
The following regimens did not improve cough fre-
quency, severity, or quality of life compared with pla-
cebo: oral N-acetylcysteine,30 inhaled N-acetylcysteine,26
bromhexine,37 ambroxol,28 or inhaled 2-mercaptoethane
sulfonate.22
Studies Involving Nonantitussive or Nonprotussive
Pharmacotherapies
We identified two studies examining antihistamines
in adults.31,48 One compared two doses of diphenhy-
dramine with placebo.31 Both doses of diphenhy-
dramine were similarly superior to placebo, with the
higher dose resulting in greater drowsiness. In another
placebo-controlled study,48 loratadine reduced the
number of coughs following tussigenic challenge.
One study examined the antibiotic erythromycin and
found no difference in cough severity, cough frequency,
cough-specific quality of life, or response to tussigenic
challenge compared with placebo.55 Another study
compared inhaled ipratropium bromide with placebo
and found improvements in cough severity and dysp-
nea associated with cough.29 Another study comparing
two bronchodilators (diprophylline vs methoxyphe-
namine) did not find differences in cough frequency or
cough-specific quality of life.53 Three studies evaluated
inhaled corticosteroids: Two found that cough severity
was reduced21 or cough more frequently resolved,40
and one found no significant improvement in cough
severity42 compared with placebo.
Studies Involving Nonpharmacologic Therapies
Only two studies evaluated nonpharmacologic inter-
ventions.51,52 The first found that a forced expiratory
technique was more effective than positive expiratory
pressure physiotherapy or no treatment in enhancing
tracheobronchial clearance but did not improve cough
frequency or severity.51 The second study found that
speech pathology management reduced cough and
limitations on everyday activity due to symptoms rel-
ative to placebo.52
Studies Involving Children
Three studies addressed the treatment of chronic
cough in children. Two of these evaluated the antihis-
tamine ketotifen vs placebo.39,50 One study found that
ketotifen reduced cough and wheeze in children aged
2 to 6 years taking medication for asthma,39 whereas
1834
Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014
the other found ketotifen to be ineffective in children
aged 6 to 36 months.50 The third study56 found that
amoxicillin clavulanate resolved cough in 48% of
children aged 0.9 to 5.25 years vs 16% for placebo
(P 5 .0016).
Quantitative Synthesis
Data from 13 studies were analyzed in a
mixed-treatment meta-analysis for cough
severity.17-19,23,26,28,30,33,35,37,38,43,46 Seven studies provided
information on opioids,17-19,33,35,43,46 five on dextromethor-
phan,18,19,23,33,38 four on mucolytics,26,28,30,37 and two on
moguisteine.17,23 Eleven studies had a placebo con-
trol18,19,26,28,30,33,35,37,38,43,46 (three of which included both
a placebo arm and an active comparison18,19,33), whereas
two studies had only active comparisons.17,23 Because
studies used various measures of severity, we con-
verted all results to effect sizes (SMDs). Relative to
placebo, the following therapies showed a beneficial
effect on cough severity: opioids (SMD, 0.55; 95% CI,
0.38-0.72; P , .0001), dextromethorphan (SMD, 0.37;
95% CI, 0.19-0.56; P 5 .0008), and moguisteine (SMD,
0.46; 95% CI, 0.01-0.92; P 5 .0475) (Fig 2). The effect
of mucolytics was not significant (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI,
20.18 to 0.36; P 5 .483). For context, effect size values
of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 represent small, medium, and
large effects, respectively.58 The studies included in
the meta-analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity
(P 5 .0152). The evidence was insufficient to determine
relative benefit among these therapies.
The meta-analysis for cough frequency included
seven studies (n 5 700 patients).16,17,23,24,33,44,46 Five pro-
vided information on opioids, two on dextrometho-
rphan, and three on moguisteine. Relative to placebo,
codeine (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36- 0.91; P 5 .0260)
and dextromethorphan (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85;
P 5 .0248) showed a beneficial effect on cough fre-
quency. The effect of moguisteine was not significant
(RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.31-1.17; P 5 .1117) (Fig 3). The
studies showed significant heterogeneity (P 5 .0231).
The estimates were too imprecise to determine whether
codeine or dextromethorphan is superior to the other.
Discussion
In studies that included an active or placebo com-
parison, we found evidence of relative efficacy for the
reduction of frequency and severity of chronic cough
only for codeine and dextromethorphan. Because of
the small number of head-to-head comparisons and
inconsistency and imprecision of results, however, we
were unable to draw conclusions about the compara-
tive effectiveness of these two agents. Tolerability
concerns were found only for opioids.
Original Research
 sample sizes and short durations of follow-up; (6) lack
of gold standard outcomes to assess efficacy and tol-
erability; (7) inconsistent reporting of comparative
statistical analyses; and (8) a limited number of direct
comparisons between active treatments. In addition,
the literature search may have missed pertinent research,
particularly studies that have not been published.
Future research could improve the state of the lit-
erature in a number of ways. Commonly used defini-
tions for chronic cough and reporting the duration,
etiology, and pertinent comorbid conditions of cough
would help with characterizing the patient population
accurately. Explicitly stating whether the aim of ther-
apy is to treat the symptom of chronic cough or an
underlying etiology would help clinicians to under-
stand how the study results apply to their patients.
Using longer durations of follow-up would help stake-
holders to better estimate the risks and benefits of
medications used for chronic cough. Furthermore,
assessing tolerability of therapies over these durations
would assist in making comparisons among thera-
pies. A combination of objective cough frequency and
patient-oriented outcome measures would provide the
most meaningful information regarding efficacy.

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of data on cough severity (standardized

mean differences).

The applicability of the findings to the United States

is limited because many of the trials we identified
included drugs that are not currently available in the
United States (14 studies, 29%). Although we excluded
drugs that had been withdrawn from the US market
(eg, for safety issues), we retained studies of drugs
marketed elsewhere but never marketed in the United
States in part because such studies may help with the
assessment of the effects of a class of cough treat-
ments. Applicability is also reduced given the age of
much of the evidence; publication dates ranged from
1953 to 2012, with 32 (76%) articles published before
2000. Given the changes in available therapies as well
as the diagnosis and treatment of underlying etiologies,
studies of contemporary therapies are needed.
The findings have limitations related to the existing
literature, including (1) few studies explicitly explor-
ing the target population (patients with unexplained
or refractory chronic cough) or subpopulations (eg,
children); (2) variable definitions of chronic cough;
(3) diverse etiologies that might respond differently to
different therapies; (4) incomplete reporting of patient
characteristics, study design, or outcomes; (5) small Figure 3. Meta-analysis of data on cough frequency (rate ratios).

journal.publications.chestnet.org CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1835

Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014

 Conclusions
A wide variety of pharmaceutical agents have been
used to treat the symptom of chronic cough. However,
there were relatively few good-quality studies that
used reliable outcome measurements over pertinent
durations of follow-up. The opioid and certain nono-
pioid and nonanesthetic antitussives most frequently
demonstrated efficacy for managing the symptom of
chronic cough, but there were insufficient data to draw
conclusions about their relative efficacy. Data on non-
pharmacologic therapies are extremely limited, as are
data on the management of chronic cough in children.
Overall, the literature regarding patients with unex-
plained or refractory chronic cough would be enhanced
by more systematic study design and reporting as well as
by assessment of both objective and patient-centered
outcomes.
Acknowledgments
Author contributions: Dr Yancy had full access to all of the data
in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data
and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Dr Yancy: contributed to the study conception and design; data
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; drafting of the submitted
manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript for important intel-
lectual content; and final approval of the version to be published.
Dr McCrory: contributed to the study conception and design; data
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critical revision of the
manuscript for important intellectual content; and final approval
of the version to be published.
Dr Coeytaux: contributed to the study conception and design;
data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critical revision of
the manuscript for important intellectual content; and final approval
of the version to be published.
Dr Schmit: contributed to the study conception and design; data
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critical revision of the
manuscript for important intellectual content; and final approval
of the version to be published.
Dr Kemper: contributed to the study conception and design; data
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critical revision of the
manuscript for important intellectual content; and final approval
of the version to be published.
Dr Goode: contributed to the data acquisition, analysis, and inter-
pretation; critical revision of the manuscript for important intel-
lectual content; and final approval of the version to be published.
Dr Hasselblad: contributed to the data analysis and interpretation,
critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual con-
tent, and final approval of the version to be published.
Dr Heidenfelder: contributed to the study conception and design,
data acquisition, critical revision of the manuscript for impor-
tant intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be
published.
Dr Sanders: contributed to the study conception and design; data
acquisition, analysis, and interpretation; critical revision of the
manuscript for important intellectual content; and final approval
of the version to be published.
Financial/nonfinancial disclosures: The authors have reported
to CHEST that no potential conflicts of interest exist with any
companies/organizations whose products or services may be dis-
cussed in this article.
Role of sponsors: This topic was nominated by the American
College of Chest Physicians and selected by the Agency for Health-
care Research and Quality (AHRQ) for systematic review by an
Evidence-based Practice Center. A representative from AHRQ
served as a contracting officer’s technical representative and pro-
vided technical assistance during the conduct of the full evidence
1836
Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014
report and comments on draft versions of the full evidence report.
AHRQ did not directly participate in the literature search; deter-
mination of study eligibility criteria; data analysis or interpretation;
or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript for publica-
tion. The authors of this manuscript are responsible for its con-
tent. Statements in the manuscript should not be construed as
endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Other contributions: This material is the result of work partially
supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Medical
Center, Durham, NC. The views expressed in this article are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy
of Duke University or the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
authors thank Megan von Isenburg, MSLS, for help with the liter-
ature search and retrieval; the peer reviewers of the full AHRQ
report for helpful feedback and guidance; R. Julian Irvine, MCM,
for project coordination; and Rebecca Gray, DPhil, for editing and
manuscript preparation.
Additional information: The e-Table can be found in the
“Supplemental Materials” area of the online article.
References
1. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2008 summary
tables. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2008_
namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2012.
2. Chang AB, Glomb WB. Guidelines for evaluating chronic
cough in pediatrics: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice
guidelines. Chest. 2006;129(1_suppl):260S-283S.
3. Pratter MR. Overview of common causes of chronic cough:
ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2006;
129(1_suppl):59S-62S.
4. Irwin RS, Corrao WM, Pratter MR. Chronic persistent cough
in the adult: the spectrum and frequency of causes and suc-
cessful outcome of specific therapy. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1981;
123(4 pt 1):413-417.
5. Irwin RS, Curley FJ, French CL. Chronic cough. The spec-
trum and frequency of causes, key components of the diag-
nostic evaluation, and outcome of specific therapy. Am Rev
Respir Dis. 1990;141(3):640-647.
6. Pratter MR, Brightling CE, Boulet LP, Irwin RS. An empiric
integrative approach to the management of cough: ACCP
evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2006;
129(1_suppl):222S-231S.
7. Irwin RS, Baumann MH, Bolser DC, et al; American College
of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Diagnosis and management
of cough executive summary: ACCP evidence-based clinical
practice guidelines. Chest. 2006;129(1_suppl):1S-23S.
8. Schroeder K, Fahey T. Should we advise parents to admin-
ister over the counter cough medicines for acute cough? Sys-
tematic review of randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis
Child. 2002;86(3):170-175.
9. Paul IM, Yoder KE, Crowell KR, et al. Effect of dextromethor-
phan, diphenhydramine, and placebo on nocturnal cough
and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents.
Pediatrics. 2004;114(1):e85-e90.
10. Kelly LF. Pediatric cough and cold preparations. Pediatr Rev.
2004;25(4):115-123.
11. Hestand HE, Teske DW. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride
intoxication. J Pediatr. 1977;90(6):1017-1018.
12. Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. Chronic cough in a child.
In: EBM Guidelines. Evidence-Based Medicine. Helsinki,
Finland: Wiley Interscience. John Wiley & Sons; 2007. http://
www.guideline.gov/browse/archive.aspx?type=2. Accessed
March 16, 2012.
13. Chung KF, Pavord ID. Prevalence, pathogenesis, and causes
of chronic cough. Lancet. 2008;371(9621):1364-1374.
Original Research
 14. McCrory DC, Coeytaux RR, Yancy WS Jr, et al. Assessment and
Management of Chronic Cough. Comparative Effectiveness
Review No. 100. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based
Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.)
Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
2013. AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC032-EF.
15. Aliprandi P, Castelli C, Bernorio S, Dell’Abate E, Carrara M.
Levocloperastine in the treatment of chronic nonproduc-
tive cough: comparative efficacy versus standard antitussive
agents. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 2004;30(4):133-141.
16. Aversa C, Cazzola M, Clini V, et al. Clinical trial of the effi-
cacy and safety of moguisteine in patients with cough associ-
ated with chronic respiratory diseases. Drugs Exp Clin Res.
1993;19(6):273-279.
17. Barnabè R, Berni F, Clini V, et al. The efficacy and safety of
moguisteine in comparison with codeine phosphate in patients
with chronic cough. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 1995;50(2):
93-97.
18. Cass LJ, Frederik WS. Evaluation of a new antitussive agent.
N Engl J Med. 1953;249(4):132-136.
19. Cass LJ, Frederik WS, Andosca JB. Quantitative comparison
of dextromethorphan hydrobromide and codeine. Am J Med
Sci. 1954;227(3):291-296.
20. Cass LJ, Frederik WS. Quantitative comparison of cough-
suppressing effects of romilar and other antitussives. J Lab
Clin Med. 1956;48(6):879-885.
21. Chaudhuri R, McMahon AD, Thomson LJ, et al. Effect of
inhaled corticosteroids on symptom severity and sputum
mediator levels in chronic persistent cough. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 2004;113(6):1063-1070.
22. Clarke SW, Lopez-Vidriero MT, Pavia D, Thomson ML. The
effect of sodium 2-mercapto-ethane sulphonate and hyper-
tonic saline aerosols on bronchial clearance in chronic bron-
chitis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1979;7(1):39-44.
23. Del Donno M, Aversa C, Corsico R, et al. Efficacy and safety
of moguisteine in comparison with dextromethorphan in
patients with persistent cough. Drug Investigation. 1994;7(2):
93-100.
24. Dierckx P, Leblanc G, Decoster A, Criscuolo D. Double-
blind study of glaucine in chronic cough. Int J Clin Pharmacol
Ther Toxicol. 1981;19(9):396-399.
25. Diwan J, Dhand R, Jindal SK, Malik SK, Sharma PL. A com-
parative randomized double-blind clinical trial of isoaminile
citrate and chlophedianol hydrochloride as antitussive agents.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1982;20(8):373-375.
26. Dueholm M, Nielsen C, Thorshauge H, et al. N-acetylcysteine
by metered dose inhaler in the treatment of chronic bronchi-
tis: a multi-centre study. Respir Med. 1992;86(2):89-92.
27. Gastpar H, Criscuolo D, Dieterich HA. Efficacy and tolera-
bility of glaucine as an antitussive agent. Curr Med Res Opin.
1984;9(1):21-27.
28. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Kazim F, Newhouse MT. A con-
trolled trial of ambroxol in chronic bronchitis. Chest. 1987;
92(4):618-620.
29. Holmes PW, Barter CE, Pierce RJ. Chronic persistent cough:
use of ipratropium bromide in undiagnosed cases following
upper respiratory tract infection. Respir Med. 1992;86(5):
425-429.
30. Jackson IM, Barnes J, Cooksey P. Efficacy and tolerability
of oral acetylcysteine (Fabrol) in chronic bronchitis: a double-
blind placebo controlled study. J Int Med Res. 1984;12(3):
198-206.
31. Lilienfield LS, Rose JC, Princiotto JV. Antitussive activity of
diphenhydramine in chronic cough. Clin Pharmacol Ther.
1976;19(4):421-425.
32. Luporini G, Barni S, Marchi E, Daffonchio L. Efficacy and
safety of levodropropizine and dihydrocodeine on nonpro-
journal.publications.chestnet.org
Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014
ductive cough in primary and metastatic lung cancer. Eur
Respir J. 1998;12(1):97-101.
33. Matthys H, Bleicher B, Bleicher U. Dextromethorphan and
codeine: objective assessment of antitussive activity in patients
with chronic cough. J Int Med Res. 1983;11(2):92-100.
34. Matts SG. A trial of Lotussin and linctus diphenhydramine
in patients with an irritant cough. J Int Med Res. 1977;5(6):
470-472.
35. Morice AH, Menon MS, Mulrennan SA, et al. Opiate therapy
in chronic cough. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(4):
312-315.
36. Mukaida K, Hattori N, Kondo K, et al. A pilot study of the
multiherb Kampo medicine bakumondoto for cough in patients
with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Phytomedicine.
2011;18(8-9):625-629.
37. Parvez L, Vaidya M, Sakhardande A, Subburaj S, Rajagopalan
TG. Evaluation of antitussive agents in man. Pulm Pharmacol.
1996;9(5-6):299-308.
38. Ramsay J, Wright C, Thompson R, Hull D, Morice AH.
Assessment of antitussive efficacy of dextromethorphan in
smoking related cough: objective vs. subjective measures.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(5):737-741.
39. Reid JJ. Double-blind trial of ketotifen in childhood chronic
cough and wheeze. Immunol Allergy Pract. 1989;11(4):
143-150.
40. Ribeiro M, Pereira CA, Nery LE, Beppu OS, Silva CO. High-
dose inhaled beclomethasone treatment in patients with
chronic cough: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Ann
Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99(1):61-68.
41. Rühle KH, Criscuolo D, Dieterich HA, Köhler D, Riedel G.
Objective evaluation of dextromethorphan and glaucine as
antitussive agents. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1984;17(5):521-524.
42. Rytilä P, Ghaly L, Varghese S, Chung W, Selroos O, Haahtela T;
Airway Inflammation Study Group. Treatment with inhaled
steroids in patients with symptoms suggestive of asthma
but with normal lung function. Eur Respir J. 2008;32(4):
989-996.
43. Sabot G, Bagnato A, Frigerio G. Controlled evaluation of the
antitussive activity of viminol p-hydroxybenzoate. Int J Clin
Pharmacol Biopharm. 1977;15(4):181-183.
44. Sevelius H, McCoy JF, Colmore JP. Dose response to codeine
in patients with chronic cough. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971;
12(3):449-455.
45. Simon SW. A comparative study of two new non-narcotic
antitussive drugs. Ohio Med. 1957;53(12):1426-1427.
46. Simon SW. Symptomatic treatment of asthmatic bronchitis.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1960;8:107-111.
47. Smith J, Owen E, Earis J, Woodcock A. Effect of codeine
on objective measurement of cough in chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(4):
831-835.
48. Tanaka S, Hirata K, Kurihara N, Yoshikawa J, Takeda T. Effect
of loratadine, an H1 antihistamine, on induced cough in non-
asthmatic patients with chronic cough. Thorax. 1996;51(8):
810-814.
49. Vakil BJ, Mehta AJ, Prajapat KD. Trial of pipazethate as an
antitussive. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1966;7(4):515-519.
50. van Asperen PP, McKay KO, Mellis CM, et al. A multicentre
randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study on the
efficacy of Ketotifen in infants with chronic cough or wheeze.
J Paediatr Child Health. 1992;28(6):442-446.
51. van Hengstum M, Festen J, Beurskens C, et al. The effect
of positive expiratory pressure versus forced expiration tech-
nique on tracheobronchial clearance in chronic bronchitics.
Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1988;23(s143):114-118.
52. Vertigan AE, Theodoros DG, Gibson PG, Winkworth AL.
Efficacy of speech pathology management for chronic cough:
CHEST / 144 / 6 / DECEMBER 2013 1837
 a randomised placebo controlled trial of treatment efficacy.
Thorax. 2006;61(12):1065-1069.
53. Wei W, Yu L, Wang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of modified
sequential three-step empirical therapy for chronic cough.
Respirology. 2010;15(5):830-836.
54. Wójcicki J, Samochowiec L, Szwed G, Sawiński J. The use
of Duopect as expectorant—antitussive agent. Arch Immunol
Ther Exp (Warsz). 1975;23(1):135-142.
55. Yousaf N, Monteiro W, Parker D, Matos S, Birring S, Pavord ID.
Long-term low-dose erythromycin in patients with unexplained
1838
Downloaded From: http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/ by a McMaster University User on 02/05/2014
chronic cough: a double-blind placebo controlled trial. Thorax.
2010;65(12):1107-1110.
56. Marchant J, Masters IB, Champion A, Petsky H, Chang AB.
Randomised controlled trial of amoxycillin clavulanate in chil-
dren with chronic wet cough. Thorax. 2012;67(8):689-693.
57. Woolf CR, Rosenberg A. Objective assessment of cough sup-
pressants under clinical conditions using a tape recorder
system. Thorax. 1964;19:125-130.
58. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
Original Research