Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Corticosteroides para el resfriado común

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 13 octubre 2015see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Gail Hayward

    Correspondencia a: Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Matthew J Thompson

    Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

  • Rafael Perera

    Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

  • Chris B Del Mar

    Centre for Research in Evidence‐Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

  • Paul P Glasziou

    Centre for Research in Evidence‐Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

  • Carl J Heneghan

    Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Contributions of authors

Gail Hayward wrote the review. The manuscript was revised by all review authors.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, UK.

    Funding for this work was provided in part by a Systematic Review Grant (GA722SRG) from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Declarations of interest

Gail Hayward: none known
Matthew J Thompson: none known
Rafael Perera: none known
Chris B Del Mar: none known
Paul P Glasziou: none known
Carl J Heneghan: none known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy for a seed grant to assess treatment of common upper respiratory tract infections with corticosteroids.

The University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences is part of the National Institute of Health Research School of Primary Care Research, which provides financial support for senior investigators who contributed to this article. The opinions expressed are those of the review authors and not of the Department of Health.

The review authors wish to thank the following people for commenting on the draft protocol: Morio Aihara, Jean‐Michel Klossek, Nicola Principi, Sree Nair and Anca Zalmanovici. We thank the following people for commenting on the draft review: Amanda Young, Harri Hemilä, Rashmi Das, Sree Nair and Anca Zalmanovici; and we thank the following people for commenting on the draft update of this review: Jenny Negus, Amanda Roberts, Ravishankar and Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu. 

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Oct 13

Corticosteroids for the common cold

Review

Gail Hayward, Matthew J Thompson, Rafael Perera, Chris B Del Mar, Paul P Glasziou, Carl J Heneghan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub3

2012 Aug 15

Corticosteroids for the common cold

Review

Gail Hayward, Matthew J Thompson, Rafael Perera, Chris B Del Mar, Paul P Glasziou, Carl J Heneghan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008116.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Corticosteroids for the common cold

Protocol

Gail Hayward, Matthew J Thompson, Carl J Heneghan, Rafael Perera, Chris B Del Mar, Paul P Glasziou

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008116

Differences between protocol and review

We have added an additional exclusion criterion as follows: "We also excluded trials where the common cold was experimentally induced if the intervention was initiated before the cold was induced." We made this decision once the range of eligible papers was established as we had not anticipated trials using experimentally induced infections.

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

PRISMA flow chart.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA flow chart.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Rhinovirus infection, Outcome 1 Number of patients with rhinovirus‐positive nasopharyngeal aspirates at day 7 of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Rhinovirus infection, Outcome 1 Number of patients with rhinovirus‐positive nasopharyngeal aspirates at day 7 of treatment.

Comparison 1. Rhinovirus infection

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of patients with rhinovirus‐positive nasopharyngeal aspirates at day 7 of treatment Show forest plot

1

199

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.73, 1.34]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Rhinovirus infection