This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The first sentence of this overstates the situation: we don't really know what the most common method of viral transmission is. From the same government agency as the next citation, this names the common cold as being solely "Airborne droplets from the nose and throat" and specifically says the "droplets in the air may be breathed in directly by another person" as the method of transmission, not just the indirect methods we're naming. The fact that inhalation of droplets is a known, non-trivial source of infection is in sources all over the place:
We really have very little basis for saying that airborne transmission is atypical. Some well-designed studies (e.g., PMID 3039011) indicate that airborne transmission may be the most common mechanism of transmission among adults, which means that this sentence may actually be backwards (at least for 80% of humans; fomites are probably most important for young children).
The source being cited here is about what the most effective treatment is, not about the routes of transmission. Being a systematic review about X does not make the source ideal for information about Y. The better sources tend to say little more than it's known to be both, and we don't know which is more important. I think we should follow them by listing what's known to happen without trying to reconcile the conflicting claims about which is more important. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and I will add it. " Aerosol transmission has been studied in the experimental setting and may provide another, albeit less common method for transmission of rhinovirus infection." The above sources are typically not peer reviewed an frequently not up to date thus I am hesitant to use them to contradict these review articles. Still going over the literature. Hope to use nearly exclusively high quality sources as wish to bring this to GA.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The review above Pg.24 states that those with a poor immune system (ie those who are malnourished) have greater morbidity. Not that they become asymtomatic carriers...
*Counterintuitively, people with stronger immune systems are more likely to develop symptomatic colds. [1] This is because the symptoms of a cold are directly due to the strong immune response to the virus, not the virus itself. People with less active immune systems—about a quarter of adults—get infected with the viruses, but the relatively weak immunological response produces no significant or identifiable symptoms. These people are asymptomatic carriers and can unknowingly spread the virus to other people. Because strong immune responses cause cold symptoms, "boosting" the immune system increases cold symptoms. [1]
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Although common cold viruses are responsible for a lot of morbidity and mortality, especially in developing countries where malnutrition may weaken the host response to infection, the common cold syndrome is usually understood as a self-limiting mild illness, and complications of common cold infections are usually described by other terms such as sinusitis, otitis media, laryngitis, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, etc."
I have not found other sources that support that a "stronger immune system" leads to more severe symptoms. Better sources say the opposite. WRT Eccles the editor of the book on the common cold (each chapter is written by an expert in this disease and most have many peer reviewed publications in this area). The author of Achoo is a popular science writer and the text does not contain inline citations. Are there other sources that confirm this? I am not happy with Achoo as a reliable source for medical information even though it does look like a good read. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Google has limited my further viewing of Ahchoo after so many pages and I was unable to find the ref in question. What I have found is that 1)people as they get older elderly get more symptomic colds as their immune system weakens 2) those who are immunocompromized and very young get worse colds. 3) As people are exposed to more colds and their immune system gets better they get less of them. Finally I am not sure what "lower-than-average immune system" means. Would be happy to look at the ref in question.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
23:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The only bit I am able to see is " “If we get our white blood cells to work better, we're going to have a stronger immune response and more exaggerated symptoms.” So, what is normally the upshot of the body's natural response to a cold virus?" from pg 45
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-aAL-JyxoikC&pg=PT45 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(1) It would be good to clarify which organ(s) are primarily affected by colds. The seems to be contradiction between the Diagnosis section and the first and second paragraphs of the lead.
(2) The Antibiotics and antivirals sections states, "[Antibiotics] cause overall harm; however, they are still frequently prescribed." Some clarification of this surprising statement would be helpful. Why do so many doctors still prescribe antibiotics? Is the "overall harm" to the patient, or only to society as a whole due to resistance?
(3) The Epidemiology section gives figures for the incidence of colds, but does not provide scope for those figures. I'd have thought infection rates would vary tremendously between countries based on population density, climate, culture etc. The Lancet article cites "Johnston S, Holgate S. Epidemiology of viral respiratory infections. In: Myint S, Taylor-Robinson D, eds. Viral and other infections of the human respiratory tract. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996: 1–38"
Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 03:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
[4] I have removed this text "People may also feel a "frog" in their throat or trouble breathing from the mucus." which is not supported by the text in question. And this ref
"Zinc for the common cold - Health News - NHS Choices". nhs.uk. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 24 February 2012. In this review, there was a high level of heterogeneity between the studies that were pooled to determine the effect of zinc on the duration of cold symptoms. This may suggest that it was inappropriate to pool them. It certainly makes this particular finding less conclusive.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help) is not of sufficient per
WP:MEDRS.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
AFP this month JFW | T@lk 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This "The incubation period for a cold is usually around two to three days before symptoms start," referenced to ADAM is the same as "Symptoms typically peak two to three days after infection onset" referenced to a textbook on the subject. The textbook IMO is a better quality reference. And I have seen issues with ADAM in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
In the subsection "Weather" of section "Cause" the common folk theory about "catching a cold" is discussed. I think the findings of the following article should be mentioned:
R. Gordon Douglas, Jr., Keith M. Lindgren, and Robert B. Couch, N. Engl. J. Med. 279:742-747 (1968).
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196810032791404
In this study, the test subjects were infected with rhinovirus while some of them were exposed to cold. The study "demonstrated no effect of exposure to cold on host resistance to rhinovirus infection and illness that could account for the commonly held belief that exposure to cold influences or causes common colds."
130.233.174.38 ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please edit this article to reflect the difference between signs (changes in the body that are visible and or measurable, eg. fever, spots, runny nose, redness, blood count abnormalities, radiographic abnormalities) and symptoms (effects of an illness that are perceived by the patient and not apparent to an observer eg. pain, numbness, lassitude, blurred vision) In the lede there is reference to symptoms and then goes on to mention 'runny nose', 'fever' and 'sputum colour', all of which are signs. There are several similar clarifications needed further on in the article. Uner 'management' - 'symptomatic' there is reference to a 'runny nose' being a symptom. It is more precis to call it a sign. Thank you. I'd be happy if you respond here. Richard Avery ( talk) 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any broad spectrum medical testing method currently available for all viruses of every known type to be identified? How do you tell the difference between a rhinovirus, a flu virus, and mononucleosis? Severity of symptoms is a vague classification method that is almost useless for clearly and exactly identifying the true cause.
With all the talk of research into sophisticated biochips and all that, it seems like it should be possible to do a single low-cost blood test that identifies everything currently in the blood, including concentration levels of all active antibodies, to determine what a person is currently infected with.
-- DMahalko ( talk) 11:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how to edit the section on economic impact, but the estimate of 20 billion dollars per year and 40% of lost work days is for people reporting to have a common cold, a number of these are in fact malingering, so if there were no common cold they would simply choose another malingering reason to stay off (eg back pain, migraine, diarrhea and vomiting etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.213.208 ( talk) 12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how to edit the article since it is protected, but one instane of "in adults" should be eliminated from the following sentence under Management - Symptomatic: In adults there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cough medications in adults Jixani ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In the Pathophysiology section, there is a misspelling: "air born" should be changed to "airborne". The mistaken sentence would then read:
The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) on the other hand is contracted by both direct contact and airborne droplets.
The word "airborne" is used correctly elsewhere in the article. Of course, "air born" would mean created or birthed in the air; "airborne" means carried in the air.
The article currently says:
Then later says:
Does anyone else see a contradiction here? pgr94 ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
And we state these conclusions. The Cochrane review also states "Of the 18 trials conducted since 1984, 11 trials have shown zinc may be useful in the treatment of the common cold and seven have shown no benefit. Most trials showing beneficial effects have been criticised for failing to mask treatment adequately due to the occurrence of side effects, while trials showing no benefit have been criticised for using formulations that reduced the bioavailability of zinc." "There was no significant difference between the intervention and control group for the proportion of participants symptomatic after day three of treatment " "There was no significant difference between the intervention and control group for proportion of participants symptomatic after day five of treatment" "There was a significant difference between the intervention and control group for proportion of participants symptomatic after day seven of treatment" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
More research will undoubtedly be published on this topic. Over time, this can be added to systematic reviews, such as this one. As the evidence grows, it will allow subgroup analyses that can answer outstanding questions about dose and who will benefit most. Until then, the body of evidence for zinc supplementation seems to be swinging in favour of its benefit, and the choice of whether to take supplements is an individual one. Many healthy people may not see the potential benefits of taking zinc as being worth the expense of supplements or the possible side effects, which can include nausea." [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We should not fail to mention issues with the Cochrane study. A review of the Cochrane meta-analysis concludes: In light of the above, we are concerned that the potential threats of such biases in the review have not been considered carefully enough. We therefore feel that readers should be cautious in their interpretation of the evidence presented in [1] owing to the possible threat of reporting and publication biases on the results of their Cochrane review. Peters, J. L.; Moreno, S. G.; Phillips, B.; Sutton, A. J. (2012). "Are we sure about the evidence for zinc in prophylaxis of the common cold?". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 15–16, author 16 17–16. doi: 10.1586/ERS.11.84. PMID 22283573.
A Canadian meta-analysis published in 2012 also concluded zinc reduces the duration of symptoms. [8]
Criticism:
Does anybody want to summarise all these results & criticisms? pgr94 ( talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The cited source says this (emphasis mine):
I do not believe that the current article accurately reflects the cited source. I edited it to better reflect what this source says and added another source to corroborate. This edit was reverted, with the comment "only one source" which is not at all accurate, and the added cite was deleted. Let's discuss this here on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway have adjusted the wording. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Question: why is it that there is a statement saying that there is no evidence that fluid intake can help recuperate the body? Also the article cited says that is for Acute Respiratory Infection, but don't you think that not all common cold cases constitute an acute respiratory infection? Is it not widely known that drinking enough liquid helps the body fight the virus or at least help with drainage? Ctorchia87 ( talk) 09:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It would seem more professional with a capitalized c in cold. It would then read: Common Cold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.145.64 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Has this study been considered?
Immunoprotective effects of oral intake of heat-killed Lactobacillus pentosus strain b240 in elderly adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
"The accumulated incidence rate of the common cold was 47·3, 34·8 and 29·0 % for the placebo, low-dose b240 and high-dose b240 groups, respectively (P for trend = 0·012). Lower incidence rates were consistently observed throughout the experimental period in the b240 groups (log-rank test, P = 0·034). General health perception, as determined by the SF-36®, dose-dependently increased in the b240 groups (P for trend = 0·016). In conclusion, oral intake of b240 significantly reduced the incidence rate of the common cold in elderly adults, indicating that b240 might be useful in improving resistance against infection through mucosal immunity." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22947249
-- Vocasla ( talk) 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In this edit [10] this sentence "which affects primarily the nose." to "which primarily affects the nose, the throat ( pharyngitis), and the sinuses ( sinusitis)" It is not also primarily affect the throat or the sinusus and thus this change makes the content incorrect. Reverted again. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This section contains only one sentence about alternative medicine while the rest is about actual scientific case studies which are NOT alternative medicine but just medicine. I recommend renaming the section to Other approaches or merging it with the Antibiotics and antivirals paragraph and renaming it to Treatment attempts. Finally, I would also like to move the sentence about alternative medicine to then end of the paragraph in which is lies with a slight change:
If there is scientific evidence for any form of alternative medicine then it is, by definition, no longer alternative medicine. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions several references from various pages of Eccles which I presume to be a previous version of Eccles, Ronald; Weber, Olaf F. (1 January 2009). Common Cold. Springer. ISBN 978-3-7643-9912-2.. This book can be browsed or searched on google books and the relevant page numbers can be updated. Diptanshu Talk 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The previous content was more to the point and in simplier language. We can have the extra details in the sub article. Thus reverted. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hhemila ( talk) 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
Zinc11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The first sentence of this overstates the situation: we don't really know what the most common method of viral transmission is. From the same government agency as the next citation, this names the common cold as being solely "Airborne droplets from the nose and throat" and specifically says the "droplets in the air may be breathed in directly by another person" as the method of transmission, not just the indirect methods we're naming. The fact that inhalation of droplets is a known, non-trivial source of infection is in sources all over the place:
We really have very little basis for saying that airborne transmission is atypical. Some well-designed studies (e.g., PMID 3039011) indicate that airborne transmission may be the most common mechanism of transmission among adults, which means that this sentence may actually be backwards (at least for 80% of humans; fomites are probably most important for young children).
The source being cited here is about what the most effective treatment is, not about the routes of transmission. Being a systematic review about X does not make the source ideal for information about Y. The better sources tend to say little more than it's known to be both, and we don't know which is more important. I think we should follow them by listing what's known to happen without trying to reconcile the conflicting claims about which is more important. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and I will add it. " Aerosol transmission has been studied in the experimental setting and may provide another, albeit less common method for transmission of rhinovirus infection." The above sources are typically not peer reviewed an frequently not up to date thus I am hesitant to use them to contradict these review articles. Still going over the literature. Hope to use nearly exclusively high quality sources as wish to bring this to GA.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The review above Pg.24 states that those with a poor immune system (ie those who are malnourished) have greater morbidity. Not that they become asymtomatic carriers...
*Counterintuitively, people with stronger immune systems are more likely to develop symptomatic colds. [1] This is because the symptoms of a cold are directly due to the strong immune response to the virus, not the virus itself. People with less active immune systems—about a quarter of adults—get infected with the viruses, but the relatively weak immunological response produces no significant or identifiable symptoms. These people are asymptomatic carriers and can unknowingly spread the virus to other people. Because strong immune responses cause cold symptoms, "boosting" the immune system increases cold symptoms. [1]
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"Although common cold viruses are responsible for a lot of morbidity and mortality, especially in developing countries where malnutrition may weaken the host response to infection, the common cold syndrome is usually understood as a self-limiting mild illness, and complications of common cold infections are usually described by other terms such as sinusitis, otitis media, laryngitis, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, etc."
I have not found other sources that support that a "stronger immune system" leads to more severe symptoms. Better sources say the opposite. WRT Eccles the editor of the book on the common cold (each chapter is written by an expert in this disease and most have many peer reviewed publications in this area). The author of Achoo is a popular science writer and the text does not contain inline citations. Are there other sources that confirm this? I am not happy with Achoo as a reliable source for medical information even though it does look like a good read. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Google has limited my further viewing of Ahchoo after so many pages and I was unable to find the ref in question. What I have found is that 1)people as they get older elderly get more symptomic colds as their immune system weakens 2) those who are immunocompromized and very young get worse colds. 3) As people are exposed to more colds and their immune system gets better they get less of them. Finally I am not sure what "lower-than-average immune system" means. Would be happy to look at the ref in question.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
23:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The only bit I am able to see is " “If we get our white blood cells to work better, we're going to have a stronger immune response and more exaggerated symptoms.” So, what is normally the upshot of the body's natural response to a cold virus?" from pg 45
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-aAL-JyxoikC&pg=PT45 Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(1) It would be good to clarify which organ(s) are primarily affected by colds. The seems to be contradiction between the Diagnosis section and the first and second paragraphs of the lead.
(2) The Antibiotics and antivirals sections states, "[Antibiotics] cause overall harm; however, they are still frequently prescribed." Some clarification of this surprising statement would be helpful. Why do so many doctors still prescribe antibiotics? Is the "overall harm" to the patient, or only to society as a whole due to resistance?
(3) The Epidemiology section gives figures for the incidence of colds, but does not provide scope for those figures. I'd have thought infection rates would vary tremendously between countries based on population density, climate, culture etc. The Lancet article cites "Johnston S, Holgate S. Epidemiology of viral respiratory infections. In: Myint S, Taylor-Robinson D, eds. Viral and other infections of the human respiratory tract. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996: 1–38"
Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 03:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
[4] I have removed this text "People may also feel a "frog" in their throat or trouble breathing from the mucus." which is not supported by the text in question. And this ref
"Zinc for the common cold - Health News - NHS Choices". nhs.uk. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 24 February 2012. In this review, there was a high level of heterogeneity between the studies that were pooled to determine the effect of zinc on the duration of cold symptoms. This may suggest that it was inappropriate to pool them. It certainly makes this particular finding less conclusive.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help) is not of sufficient per
WP:MEDRS.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
AFP this month JFW | T@lk 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This "The incubation period for a cold is usually around two to three days before symptoms start," referenced to ADAM is the same as "Symptoms typically peak two to three days after infection onset" referenced to a textbook on the subject. The textbook IMO is a better quality reference. And I have seen issues with ADAM in the past. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
In the subsection "Weather" of section "Cause" the common folk theory about "catching a cold" is discussed. I think the findings of the following article should be mentioned:
R. Gordon Douglas, Jr., Keith M. Lindgren, and Robert B. Couch, N. Engl. J. Med. 279:742-747 (1968).
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196810032791404
In this study, the test subjects were infected with rhinovirus while some of them were exposed to cold. The study "demonstrated no effect of exposure to cold on host resistance to rhinovirus infection and illness that could account for the commonly held belief that exposure to cold influences or causes common colds."
130.233.174.38 ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please edit this article to reflect the difference between signs (changes in the body that are visible and or measurable, eg. fever, spots, runny nose, redness, blood count abnormalities, radiographic abnormalities) and symptoms (effects of an illness that are perceived by the patient and not apparent to an observer eg. pain, numbness, lassitude, blurred vision) In the lede there is reference to symptoms and then goes on to mention 'runny nose', 'fever' and 'sputum colour', all of which are signs. There are several similar clarifications needed further on in the article. Uner 'management' - 'symptomatic' there is reference to a 'runny nose' being a symptom. It is more precis to call it a sign. Thank you. I'd be happy if you respond here. Richard Avery ( talk) 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any broad spectrum medical testing method currently available for all viruses of every known type to be identified? How do you tell the difference between a rhinovirus, a flu virus, and mononucleosis? Severity of symptoms is a vague classification method that is almost useless for clearly and exactly identifying the true cause.
With all the talk of research into sophisticated biochips and all that, it seems like it should be possible to do a single low-cost blood test that identifies everything currently in the blood, including concentration levels of all active antibodies, to determine what a person is currently infected with.
-- DMahalko ( talk) 11:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how to edit the section on economic impact, but the estimate of 20 billion dollars per year and 40% of lost work days is for people reporting to have a common cold, a number of these are in fact malingering, so if there were no common cold they would simply choose another malingering reason to stay off (eg back pain, migraine, diarrhea and vomiting etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.213.208 ( talk) 12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how to edit the article since it is protected, but one instane of "in adults" should be eliminated from the following sentence under Management - Symptomatic: In adults there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cough medications in adults Jixani ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In the Pathophysiology section, there is a misspelling: "air born" should be changed to "airborne". The mistaken sentence would then read:
The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) on the other hand is contracted by both direct contact and airborne droplets.
The word "airborne" is used correctly elsewhere in the article. Of course, "air born" would mean created or birthed in the air; "airborne" means carried in the air.
The article currently says:
Then later says:
Does anyone else see a contradiction here? pgr94 ( talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
And we state these conclusions. The Cochrane review also states "Of the 18 trials conducted since 1984, 11 trials have shown zinc may be useful in the treatment of the common cold and seven have shown no benefit. Most trials showing beneficial effects have been criticised for failing to mask treatment adequately due to the occurrence of side effects, while trials showing no benefit have been criticised for using formulations that reduced the bioavailability of zinc." "There was no significant difference between the intervention and control group for the proportion of participants symptomatic after day three of treatment " "There was no significant difference between the intervention and control group for proportion of participants symptomatic after day five of treatment" "There was a significant difference between the intervention and control group for proportion of participants symptomatic after day seven of treatment" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
More research will undoubtedly be published on this topic. Over time, this can be added to systematic reviews, such as this one. As the evidence grows, it will allow subgroup analyses that can answer outstanding questions about dose and who will benefit most. Until then, the body of evidence for zinc supplementation seems to be swinging in favour of its benefit, and the choice of whether to take supplements is an individual one. Many healthy people may not see the potential benefits of taking zinc as being worth the expense of supplements or the possible side effects, which can include nausea." [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We should not fail to mention issues with the Cochrane study. A review of the Cochrane meta-analysis concludes: In light of the above, we are concerned that the potential threats of such biases in the review have not been considered carefully enough. We therefore feel that readers should be cautious in their interpretation of the evidence presented in [1] owing to the possible threat of reporting and publication biases on the results of their Cochrane review. Peters, J. L.; Moreno, S. G.; Phillips, B.; Sutton, A. J. (2012). "Are we sure about the evidence for zinc in prophylaxis of the common cold?". Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine. 6 (1): 15–16, author 16 17–16. doi: 10.1586/ERS.11.84. PMID 22283573.
A Canadian meta-analysis published in 2012 also concluded zinc reduces the duration of symptoms. [8]
Criticism:
Does anybody want to summarise all these results & criticisms? pgr94 ( talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The cited source says this (emphasis mine):
I do not believe that the current article accurately reflects the cited source. I edited it to better reflect what this source says and added another source to corroborate. This edit was reverted, with the comment "only one source" which is not at all accurate, and the added cite was deleted. Let's discuss this here on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway have adjusted the wording. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Question: why is it that there is a statement saying that there is no evidence that fluid intake can help recuperate the body? Also the article cited says that is for Acute Respiratory Infection, but don't you think that not all common cold cases constitute an acute respiratory infection? Is it not widely known that drinking enough liquid helps the body fight the virus or at least help with drainage? Ctorchia87 ( talk) 09:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It would seem more professional with a capitalized c in cold. It would then read: Common Cold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.145.64 ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Has this study been considered?
Immunoprotective effects of oral intake of heat-killed Lactobacillus pentosus strain b240 in elderly adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
"The accumulated incidence rate of the common cold was 47·3, 34·8 and 29·0 % for the placebo, low-dose b240 and high-dose b240 groups, respectively (P for trend = 0·012). Lower incidence rates were consistently observed throughout the experimental period in the b240 groups (log-rank test, P = 0·034). General health perception, as determined by the SF-36®, dose-dependently increased in the b240 groups (P for trend = 0·016). In conclusion, oral intake of b240 significantly reduced the incidence rate of the common cold in elderly adults, indicating that b240 might be useful in improving resistance against infection through mucosal immunity." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22947249
-- Vocasla ( talk) 13:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In this edit [10] this sentence "which affects primarily the nose." to "which primarily affects the nose, the throat ( pharyngitis), and the sinuses ( sinusitis)" It is not also primarily affect the throat or the sinusus and thus this change makes the content incorrect. Reverted again. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This section contains only one sentence about alternative medicine while the rest is about actual scientific case studies which are NOT alternative medicine but just medicine. I recommend renaming the section to Other approaches or merging it with the Antibiotics and antivirals paragraph and renaming it to Treatment attempts. Finally, I would also like to move the sentence about alternative medicine to then end of the paragraph in which is lies with a slight change:
If there is scientific evidence for any form of alternative medicine then it is, by definition, no longer alternative medicine. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions several references from various pages of Eccles which I presume to be a previous version of Eccles, Ronald; Weber, Olaf F. (1 January 2009). Common Cold. Springer. ISBN 978-3-7643-9912-2.. This book can be browsed or searched on google books and the relevant page numbers can be updated. Diptanshu Talk 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The previous content was more to the point and in simplier language. We can have the extra details in the sub article. Thus reverted. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hhemila ( talk) 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
Zinc11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).