This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cold medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 31 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sumreensajjad (
article contribs).
Hello, I started doing the Linctus page, but it was (rightly) redirected to here. I'd like to add 'Linctus' to this page in some way (ie to mention it's a cough suppressant, syrupy medicine, etc...) The history of the Linctus page should have my points. Also some references regarding whether it works or not, etc, might be good?
Took a photo of a linctus bottle (needs rotating, sorry don't have necessary software, maybe it could be used???)
I think this should be replaced:
It says "one of the most...", but three brands are mentioned. Also, I've never heard of one of these "most popular" brands. Just say "there are many brands and forms available", something like that.
"Some cough mixtures contain both expectorants and suppressants in their active ingredients - again suggestive that they are primarily placebo in their effect."
Antitussives prevent coughing. Expectorants aid the removal of mucus --- they make coughing productive. One product does not cancel out the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.244.49 ( talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How does containing both a suppressant and an expectorant suggest that the placebo effect is the intended action mechanism. Couldn't this be a two pronged mixture intended to handle both types of cough?
An expectorant promotes coughing, a suppressant prevents coughing. Their actions are in conflict with each other. CustardJack 11:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
An expectorant lowers the viscosity of the mucous/phlegm of the bronchi/trachea and causes more respiratory fluid, which has low viscosity, to be produced. This action allows for the break-up of any thick obstruction in the throat and allows for easier removal via productive cough. Without the expectorant, any coughing would most likely be unproductive and irrating to the respiratory tract. The antitussive also aids in the treatment by lowering the total amount of coughing and irritation that is caused by both the obstructive mucous caused by infection/inflammation and the expectorant. Productive cough is still achieved and the overall effectiveness of the combination therapy is better than no treatment when excessive irritation and pain are being caused by coughing.
"The last statement has no weight. whoever wrote it probably doesn't understand..." I removed this text from the main article. The article pages are no place for ad hominim attacks. Instead, I replaced it with something that I think captures both thoughts. I also edited the text in the above paragraph to make it render correctly. Someone may wish to include it in the main article at some later time. -- Mdwyer 02:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the history of cough syrup flavoring or where that article might be found?
There is some inconsistency in how 'expectorant' and 'expectorants' are handled.
Among other things, it seems unreasonable that 'Expectorant' and 'Expectorants' would redirect to different places. Jim ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I researched expectorants online, and I recall reading that the only expectorant that had been proven to work was water (which fits with my own experience). This is the closest I could find, when I searched again: "Clinical studies have not shown these products (i.e. expectorants in ) to be effective. [1] ... Water is a natural expectorant and can be recommended for increased fluid intake in children and teenagers who are not on fluid restriction. [2]" - Choosing Pediatric OTC Medicines (US Pharmacist journal)
References
I suspect it's accurate to say that "Water is the best expectorant you can take and will help thin the mucus and loosen the cough." [1] & "For a wet cough, a glass of water is the best expectorant you can take." [2]. But these sources aren't ideal - does someone knows some more appropriate (e.g. academic) sources? -- Singkong2005 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In the main article, there is an external link citation to mayoclinic.com after the claim that water is a good expectorant.. but the mayoclinic article does not talk about water being an expectorant.. it doesn't even mention the word "water" in it at all. -- Wuziq 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
On dark chocolate: While pure theobromine may be effective and with fewer side-effects, the mentioned dosages of black chocolate are not. Ingesting the suggested amount(50g) could lead to very unpleasant stomach issues, as just experienced by myself with a much smaller amount. Really crappy advice people :) , but I forgive you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.233.247 ( talk) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"A new study by a Penn State College of Medicine research team found that honey may offer parents an effective and safe alternative than over the counter children's cough medicines."
Also from the article: " These findings are especially notable since an FDA advisory board recently recommended that over-the-counter cough and cold medicines not be given to children less than 6 years old because of their lack of effectiveness and potential for side effects."
Does anyone have a link to this information? I've read anywhere from age 2, to 4, to 6, and have been unable to confirm the FDA guideline. I feel the above info should be included. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
for two days ive been taking cough drops because of my caughing and i find it haard not to choke on them because of the huge reflex of breathing in realy fast after a cough... theyre deadly... Milldog 93 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Current article says: "Cough medicine", for example "Grandpa's old cough medicine", is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages, or even actual cough medicine such as NyQuil which in some formulations has a high alcohol content.
How can "cough medicine" be a euphemism for "actual cough medicine such as NyQuil"?
I think the author needs to sort this out. Perhaps two sentences are required. e.g. "Cough medicine is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages. Note that some cough medicines such as NyQuil can have high alcohol content."
Ordinary Person 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
== Recreational usage ==-- 137.238.121.88 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
can something be put in about recreational usage, ie its effects, detriments Etc.
[ http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_health2.shtml The Bad News Isn't In A Look at the Evidence for Specific Mechanisms of Dissociative-Induced Brain Damage and Cognitive Impairment]
Sorry if the coding isn't exactly right--my browser is weird :\
- Qolonoscopy
for an article on cough medicine in general, too much focuses on the 2006 china incident. -- 137.238.121.88 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I took my mother to a hospital where she was subscribed "Linctus Codeine" for some cough she has been having for some time. I have been to most farmasis and was said that this drug has been banned for almost 2 years now. Is this true? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrunan ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This entry seems to concentrate primarily on pharmacology (i.e., ingredients, their effects, etc.) but I'm wondering if there should be at least a brief section summarizing some of the legal issues pertaining to the subject: for example, some states have laws limiting the sale of cough medicines containing certain ingredients; individual retail stores have initiated their own policies, and so on. (I realize it might be possible to look up each and every ingredient mentioned in the article, but something 'central' might be more convenient.)
Of course, if this particular article should be limited to pharmacological matters, a 'legal issues' section wouldn't be appropriate.
-- JWMcCalvin ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The editorial section on opioid analgesics needs to be edited and reduced to fit into scope of the article as a whole. I think it should stick to products used in current practice with maybe a paragraph or two on history of prior products. Laudanum is the stuff of Victorian Age poets Byron and Shelley. There are hundreds if not thousands of opioid analogs and derivatives that have zero practical value in modern medicine anywhere in the world. Perhaps with some citations and some fact checking, this part of the article could be moved to a page about the history of opioid products. As it stands its wordy, inaccurate, incomplete, and has way too much detail unessential to discussion of "cough medicine." All opioids have some cough suppressant properties; there are only a handful in use in modern medicine. Also, not all of them are opioids or derivatives. One that pops into mind is benzonatate. Its a good idea for people to have a reference to see the range of cough preparations, buts lets not send them to the chemists seeking Laudanum. 68.4.46.85 ( talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)John
This article asserts contamination with diethylene glycol, while Toxic cough syrup and others state ethylene glycol.
Iain marcuson ( talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It states that codeine is the strongest cough suppressant and is the gold standard that all other meds are compared too. The only problem is recent studies have found it no better than placebo. That makes it an easy gold standard to meet. "journals.lww.com". Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Much of this section seems off-topic and thus appear biased or incite unneeded comments. Most of the studies mentioned are about symptoms of colds or influenza which are much (much) broader and only indirectly related to the page topic 'Cough medicine'. Perhaps simply linking to the relevant cold or influenza pages would be more appropriate, unless the studies specifically relate to cough medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.62.204 ( talk) 08:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The article states: "Evidence however does not support many other herbalist's claims of plants as effective antitussives." There is no ref provided. While I am not suggesting that the herbalist's claims are true, I am not aware of any studies (other than echinasea)that have been done. If we can't provide studies, I feel the wording needs to be changed to reflect the lack of studies rather than to suggest that they have been done and have found the herbalist's claims to be not factual. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Many alternative treatments are used to treat the common cold. None, however, are supported by solid scientific evidence.[8]
A 2009 review found that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of zinc is mixed with respect to cough[9] and a 2000 Cochrane review found the evidence of benefit or harm in the common cold inconclusive.[10] A 2004 review however found a possible decrease in the severity and incidence of the common cold in certain sub populations.[11]
Echinacea in trials for prevention of the common cold has been found to be ineffective well for treatment an effect is seen in some trials with certain type of echinacea and no effect is seen in others.[12] Another review from 2007 claimed benefit from echinacea for the common cold[13] however further analysis found problems with the interpretations of this review.[14]
While a number of plants and Chinese herbs have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive.[15]
Here are the problems that need to be addressed:
Echinacea has solid evidence and I provided several good references. The ScienceDaily study is the Lancet study. Actually your ref #14 is the Lancet study and it found problems with the earlier New England Journal study. Also, I had four good refs for zink. And in fact, the one that you provide supports its effectiveness as well! So clearly it would seem that you are not correct when you state, "None, howerer, are supported by solid scientific evidence". It seems to me that you are just pushing your POV here rather than accept the solid evidence that I have provided.
I am unable to follow several of your links--they don't match the information, don't work, etc.
I am going to revert your post. Please discuss before you change it again so that you can point out to me where my information is incorrect. Gandydancer ( talk) 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Because of the size and scope of the UConn meta-analysis, which included only randomized, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed studies, the researchers were able to observe effects the smaller, individual studies, including the New England Journal of Medicine study which was included in the UConn review, were not able to determine alone. The UConn researchers also were able to examine Echinacea’s effects with and without the presence of additional supplements and whether exposure to viruses occurred naturally or study subjects were inoculated with a cold virus."
Refs 9 and 10 are about OTC's and zinc. The zinc is not even available. I provided 4 Pub Med refs for zinc. Did you read them? Gandydancer ( talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We have agreed that PubMed is a good source and I need to know why you have deleted all of my references for zinc. I am glad that we agree that good references are important, because I have been looking at several other articles and I found many of the references to be worthless.
I hope that we can work together on this and come up with something that is not POV on either side, but merely gives the latest information so that people can make up their own minds. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www3.cochrane.org/press/wiley/2006.01.25.echinacea_and_common_cold.pdf Gandydancer ( talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Here you can clearly see your edit
[5]
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)There are a number of things wrong with this section. I'm looking at the "effectiveness" section, which is basically a criticism section. Some of the contents seem to manipulate words in order to prove a point. For example, the first line says: "Health care professionals have a long history of acceptance of cough and cold medicines." The citation was from a "Cough and Cold Review Group" in Wellington, New Zealand. The sentence fails to point out that cough and cold (and flu) medicines have been administered for decades *because of clinical studies showing that they ameliorate the symptoms*. Yes, there are new studies and meta-analyses that are questioning this, but it's not like doctors were duped into administering the stuff. In other words, the "acceptance" of cough and cold medicine isn't random or flippant. So it would be good to be more clear in what we're saying or just delete the sentence. I chose to delete. If someone disagrees, by all means, reinstate it and revise accordingly.
The section then cites a meta-analysis that states that cough medicines may be no more effective than placebo in treating acute cough. This is important and may have great significance, but the fact that it was a meta-analysis and not a clinical study is only glossed over. This is, however, an important detail. It means that this has opened up a question, rather than showing anything conclusively (as would well-replicated double-blind randomized placebo studies). Also I don't know if this applies to productive coughs from cold and flu or to non-productive coughs. Symptoms of the former -- productive coughs -- are, to a degree, effectively treated my going after the mucus through expectorants, which get rid of mucus, and decongestants, that use the vasoconstriction to prevent the mucus from being formed in the first place. (The efficacy of small dose decongestants has recently come under scrutiny but this is a topic that still being debated. The case is far from closed, and I suspect that the final determination will fall somewhere in the middle.) The latter -- non-productive coughs -- are harder to attack because they may be caused by many different things, including bacteria (see next paragraph), viruses or diseases (e.g. cancer). One can try cough suppressants but this likely won't stop the underlying cause. The point is that there are different types of coughs that can, at the present moment, be treated with medicines that have differing degrees of efficacy. Thus, the type of cough that this meta-analysis focuses on is very important.
The section then continues with this sentence: "In 2006, the American College of Chest Physicians published a guideline that had the dual message that many over-the-counter cough medicines are not effective, and that those that are effective in treating the symptom do not treat the underlying cause; the underlying disorder emphasized by the guideline was pertussis (whooping cough) in the elderly." There is much wrong with these sentences. First of all, the source is a dead link form www.chestnet.org. Second, the author begins by making the pronouncement that "many over-the-counter cough medicines are not effective" -- this isn't really true. The most popular cough medicines treat *productive* coughs associated with cold and flu. These work quite well on this type of cough -- especially those that attack the mucus that makes productive coughs so nasty (I touched on this in my paragraph). Anyone who's taken an expectorant has probably felt its effects as mucus is released from the nose and chest. The efficacy of expectorants has been studied clinically and documented anecdotally. So to say that these over-the-counter meds are ineffective is, at best, misleading, and, at worst, simply false. And, most importantly, these popular cough medicines are not meant for whooping cough. They have little to do with whooping cough, which is caused by a bacterium and can last for weeks or months. A doctor wouldn't prescribe most over-the-counter cough medicines for whooping cough because of this underlying problem. Expectorants and decongestants would do nothing to help, and cough suppressants *might* provide temporary relief (or might not) but would by no means stop the cough because the bacteria would still be present. The author does actually write that the available cough medicines don't "treat the underlying cause" -- obviously. They aren't meant to. They are, for the most part, indicated for an entirely different kind of cough. Thus, the inclusion of this revelation that over-the-counter cough meds don't treat whooping cough is silly. These meds don't treat arthritis or acne or anemia either. Should we mention that too?
The paragraph on cocoa compounds that act as cough suppressants was good except for the part where it said the compound was "free from [adverse] side effects in the blind tests." What the author meant to write (or, at least, I hope s/he meant to write this) is that the compound was free of the adverse effects that accompany use of the alternative cough suppressant in the study, which was the opiate codeine. Theobromine, which is the cocoa compound in question does certainly have side effects such as sleeplessness, tremors, restlessness, anxiety, diuresis and numerous other light but very-much-present effects on the heart & vascular system. (By the way, I practically copied and pasted that info from the wiki article. So let's change here sentence here at least for consistency's sake!) What theobromine doesn't have is the many of the adverse effects of codeine. Codeine can have obvious and serious side effects, mostly after prolonged use (which, like all opiates, can cause addiction) or use in amounts too large (which, like all opiates, can cause respiration to severely depress or even stop entirely).
I simply deleted the sentence: "The efficacy of cough syrups for children has long been questioned by medical professionals." This un-sourced sentence blatantly violates numerous Wiki guidelines all in one sentence. Questioned by who exactly? For a long time you say? I'll need a source on that please... The sentence may be accurate but is unacceptable in its present condition.
Sorry for the Biblical length post. It's just frustrating to read a section that's chock full of misleading and, even (in at least one case) inaccurate statements. The problem is that it all sounds authoritative but is actually riddled with these issues. This is a dangerous combo for a medical-related article.
Cheers, ask123 ( talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
So why was the paragraph on cocoa deleted? Is this http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/04-1990fjev1 no longer valid? Piechjo ( talk) 13:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Examples section contains what appears to be questionable editing. It phrased codeine in such a way as to suggest it does not suppress any coughs, which is not what the citation says and then said DM/DXM did not suppress coughs in adults, which is not what the citation says either, it says it "provides some relief". Since the DXM claim was almost the complete opposite of what the citation said, perhaps someone has a vested interest or bias in writing this information rather than making a simple editing error, it's worth keeping your eye on, 87.113.222.60 ( talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the discussion of effectiveness is best while discussing each individual med.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that antitussive redirects to cough medicine and yet is barely mentioned. What are antitussive medicines, how do they work, a list of antitussive medicines is... would seem appropriate. 67.167.106.3 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Recent studies show that antitussives are not 100% effective and not significantly effective in young children. However, This entire article gives the POV that all antitussives are unless. What crap!
1, do you thing a giant international pharmaceutal business could be sustained on fraud? If so you obviously have never heard of efficient markets theory.
2, do you think doctors who prescribe antitussives are all idiots convinced by marketing blitz?
3, do you think no person ever has gained aid in using an antitussive --- and if so why do they continue to use them? People are not idiots, in the main, I used DXM tonight an my coughing stopped. I guess I'm just an idiot too.
4, If you want clinical evidence I suggest you do a google scholar search on "antitussive". You will find many articles regarding positive antitussive effects. Do you want me to cite them all? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=antitussive&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.244.49 ( talk) 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not find anywhere how these cough medicines actually work, particularly the antitussives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add hyrdocodone to the list of antitussive because I have taken it. It was removed because of a poor reference. I tried rewording something that lacked a reference, and then a reference was added. That's fine, but the text added was for codeine. The reference is for codeine and morphine. Why isn't morphine included on this list? This article seems to be deliberately poorly written in order to discourage the use of cough medicine. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker ( talk) 09:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Trying to determine whether or not this article is biased in a way that implies cough medicines are ineffective and deliberately does not include sources and references that imply that they are. It is also missing many typical medicines such as hydrocodone and morphine. There have been attempts in the past to fix the article (scroll up on talk page) but they have always been met with resistance. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker ( talk) 10:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
So in medicine one assumes no effect until an effect is shown. One states that no effect of benefit has been found until one has been.
The whole point of a systematic review is to provide an overall summary of the evidence. Thus this conclusion over rides all RCTs and this is consensus here on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does, "CONCLUSIONS: There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It tells us a great deal that is useful. What it means is that these medications should not be recommended until proper trials are done that show this stuff to be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
*Comment: There are a lot of cross-purposes in this discussion (which I read before reading the article, which in turn is too brief and superficial for proper coherence.) I reckon we should construct a list of considerations that deserve distinct attention before we argue what should go in and in what form. One statement (whether in the article or in the Talk) will say something about "cough", another will deny it on the justification of a study on "acute cough" which failed to find effect. etc etc. Acute cough is not in such argument distinguished usefully from cough in acute diseases, or cough of acute intensity in the absence of infection (eg resulting from irritation or injury, possibly of an intensity sufficient to be a serious problem in its own right.) It does not distinguish between cough as a sign or symptom, or as a pathological condition. It does not distinguish between cough control for the patient's comfort, the patient's associates' comfort etc. And it says precious little about the nature of the benefits of medicines, failing to distinguish between superficial effects and placebos. For example, honey is dismissed as a placebo, whereas it can be very effective as a mild expectorant in a dry cough that can be of a dangerous intensity. (There are better expectorants and lozenges, but in default of anything better, it is a hell of a lot better than a materially functionless placebo!) In short, as things stand the article is of little use to the user and the talk is likely to circle and circle indefinitely unless we can mark out the points we want to make and avoid. Elsewhere on the page we had some good stuff translated from the Swedish, but we need to go further than that. JonRichfield ( talk) 07:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
*Comment: Since writing the immediately foregoing, I have had a quick look at Cough. It addresses a lot of my points. Either this article should be merged with Cough, or it should systematically address the concepts discussed there. JonRichfield ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) I really didn't go in depth enough to have an opinion on any excluded material. And most of the article looks OK. But there were two things that really jumped out at me when I read it. One is the "effectiveness" section. There's one sentence in the (#2) which a "gold standard" in terms of content and sourcing: "A 2012 Cochrane review concluded that "There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough". But the rest of the section seems put together in a way to be negative in ways that are really reaching from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sentence #1 and #3 made broad negative statements in the voice of Wikipedia with sourcing that is nowhere strong enough to justify doing so. Sentence #1 does in a way that sort of "slips under the radar".....using the word "questionable" could be justified on the grounds that it means "in question" while it's common meaning / connotation actually is "bad" or "not so". Then remainder of the section is sentence after sentence / saying say it doesn't work for something, but the "somethings" are typically more serious diseases not related to it's common uses.
The other thing that jumped out at me is that there is very little coverage of the main subject by it's common meaning. The common meaning of "Cough medicine" is the common stuff that they sell at the store.....billions of dollars worth per year is made of that stuff by a huge industry, but there seems to be very little coverages of that. The article seems to be more about methods /chemicals used to treat cough and discussions about the use, effectiveness and consequences of those. That's all fine, but where's the coverage of "cough medicine" by it's common meaning? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
[Invited by the bot] This article has WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX issues in its discussion of the (in)effectiveness of the medicines. I'd start by removing liberal sprinkling of "attempt" in the lead. Coughs are routinely treated with cough medicine. Whether this is effective or not is a separate question and not one we're going to resolve on Wikipedia. ~ KvnG 01:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jmh649 for reworking the lead. The fact that 2/3rds of the lead is about the ineffectiveness of cough medicine I guess accurately reflects the WP:UNDUE emphasis of this aspect in the body of the article. I think WhatamIdoing has presented some good ideas for improving coverage of the other aspects of this topic. We can improve the lead as we improve the article. ~ KvnG 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The cases of poisoning caused by counterfeit cough medications do not belong in this article. They are nothing to do with actual cough syrup, and their inclusion looks a lot like scaremongering against a product you have a personal dislike for.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
"Society and culture" is a nonsensical heading for this. Why is it even in the article? What does it tell us about cough medicine? The answer, clearly, is absolutely nothing. It fails WP:REL and only seems to be here to discredit cough medicine, although why anyone would want to do that passes my understanding.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 01:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Fergus has removed this ref here and replaced it with a fact tag [11] [12]
The ref says "Overall, there was absence of credible evidence" and "No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review" thus not sure if this is an improvement [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This source might be useful for covering cough & children,
PMID
22962927 , found at
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0715/p153.html .
Zad
68
05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional source:
This is from the Medical Products Agency - Sweden, translated by me (with great care not to influence the guidelines) [14]:
Hos vuxna är den akut påkomna hostan i samband med en infektion svår att påverka men lindras nog bäst med varm dryck. Olika läkemedels effekt på hosta är dåligt studerad och resultaten svårtolkade. Läkemedel mot hosta är därför inte rabattberättigade. Om torr rethosta föreligger, kan man pröva centralt hostdämpande farmaka, t ex noskapin, och är hostan mycket besvärande nattetid kan man med vederbörlig försiktighet skriva ut läkemedel innehållande etylmorfin, såsom Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In adults acute cough in conjunction with an infection is diffucult to influence, but is most likely helped best with warm beverages. The effect of different medication on cough is poorly studied, and the results difficult to interpret. Therefor pharmaceuticals against cough are not entitled to reduced rate[in Sweden]. If dry irritating cough is found it is possible to to try a centrally cough-reducing medicine, for example noskapin, och if the cough is very inconveniencing during the night one can with proper caution prescribe pharmaceuticals containing ethylmorphine such as Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
Hos barn är det viktigt att först skapa sig en bild av den underliggande infektionen. Det gäller att behandla en eventuell obstruktivitet i första hand. Får man obstruktiviteten under kontroll avtar ofta också hostan. Att ge slemlösande medel är verkningslöst. Hostan kan ofta förklaras av att det tar tid för flimmerhåren att återbildas efter infektionen och den går över efter 1–2 månader utan behandling. Ett barn i 4–7-årsåldern kan efter en period av recidiverande nedre luftvägsinfektioner ha utvecklat postinfektiös hyperreaktivitet och hostreflexen har blivit mer lättutlöst. Sannolikt finns ett kroniskt inflammatoriskt tillstånd i slemhinnan. Vid långvarig hyperreaktivitet kan man pröva inhalationssteroid i lågdos 1–2 gånger/dag. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In children it is important to form an image of the underlying infection. It is due to treat a possible obstructivity in first hand. If you get the obstructivity under controll the cough will often subside. To give exporants is without effect. The cough can often be explained by the time it takes to regain the cilia after an infection and it will pass after 1-2 months without treatment. A child 4-7 years of age can after a period of recidivating lower airway-infection have developed a postinfectious hyperactivity and the cough-reflex has become easier to provoke. Most likelt there is a chronic inflammatory condition in the mucous membrane. During prolonged hyperreactivity one can try an inhalation-steroid in low dosage 1-2 times a day. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
CFCF ( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
These edits are specifically against the comments above [15]. This user has added them 4 times now and has been reported to 3RR [16] I have a few concerns with them:
I would thus propose reverting back to the last stable version of the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on this agreement I have reverted the article back to status quo ante, those interested in seeing some of those edits should propose them for discussion individually.
Zad
68
14:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why this change was made. Thus reverted [18] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that the section you keep moving is not examples. But a discussion of the evidence for specific examples. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This "Medicines repressing the coughing itself (the antitussives) should only be used in non-productive coughing, e.g. when no slime is produced. If slime is produced, coughing is a good way to get rid of it. In that case expectorants may be used to relieve symptoms. http://medical.tpub.com/10669-c/css/10669-c_254.htm" is not a very good ref.
There is also not good evidence that expectorants relieve symptoms. And this is not an "example" of a cough medicine but a comment on effectiveness. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cough medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In my view this article should be called "cold medicine", which redirects here. These combination drugs deal with other stuff than coughing, and there are many variations that have no antitussives in them. Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Very far from a 5x expansion with no chance of qualifying for DYK; closed as unsuccessful.
5x expanded by 2604:2d80:6984:3800::aff0 ( talk). Nominated by That Coptic Guy ( talk) at 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC).
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DayQuil and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31 § DayQuil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
NyQuil and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 § NyQuil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 07:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The are four main types of cough mixture in most stores: 1) Linctus, 2) Dry Tickly, 3) Chesty, 4) Bronchial.
I would like to see a section devoted to describing how to choose which one is appropriate for particular symptoms. I think this would be most useful for most people (well, it's what I came here for !) Darkman101 ( talk) 21:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cold medicine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 31 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sumreensajjad (
article contribs).
Hello, I started doing the Linctus page, but it was (rightly) redirected to here. I'd like to add 'Linctus' to this page in some way (ie to mention it's a cough suppressant, syrupy medicine, etc...) The history of the Linctus page should have my points. Also some references regarding whether it works or not, etc, might be good?
Took a photo of a linctus bottle (needs rotating, sorry don't have necessary software, maybe it could be used???)
I think this should be replaced:
It says "one of the most...", but three brands are mentioned. Also, I've never heard of one of these "most popular" brands. Just say "there are many brands and forms available", something like that.
"Some cough mixtures contain both expectorants and suppressants in their active ingredients - again suggestive that they are primarily placebo in their effect."
Antitussives prevent coughing. Expectorants aid the removal of mucus --- they make coughing productive. One product does not cancel out the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.244.49 ( talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How does containing both a suppressant and an expectorant suggest that the placebo effect is the intended action mechanism. Couldn't this be a two pronged mixture intended to handle both types of cough?
An expectorant promotes coughing, a suppressant prevents coughing. Their actions are in conflict with each other. CustardJack 11:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
An expectorant lowers the viscosity of the mucous/phlegm of the bronchi/trachea and causes more respiratory fluid, which has low viscosity, to be produced. This action allows for the break-up of any thick obstruction in the throat and allows for easier removal via productive cough. Without the expectorant, any coughing would most likely be unproductive and irrating to the respiratory tract. The antitussive also aids in the treatment by lowering the total amount of coughing and irritation that is caused by both the obstructive mucous caused by infection/inflammation and the expectorant. Productive cough is still achieved and the overall effectiveness of the combination therapy is better than no treatment when excessive irritation and pain are being caused by coughing.
"The last statement has no weight. whoever wrote it probably doesn't understand..." I removed this text from the main article. The article pages are no place for ad hominim attacks. Instead, I replaced it with something that I think captures both thoughts. I also edited the text in the above paragraph to make it render correctly. Someone may wish to include it in the main article at some later time. -- Mdwyer 02:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the history of cough syrup flavoring or where that article might be found?
There is some inconsistency in how 'expectorant' and 'expectorants' are handled.
Among other things, it seems unreasonable that 'Expectorant' and 'Expectorants' would redirect to different places. Jim ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I researched expectorants online, and I recall reading that the only expectorant that had been proven to work was water (which fits with my own experience). This is the closest I could find, when I searched again: "Clinical studies have not shown these products (i.e. expectorants in ) to be effective. [1] ... Water is a natural expectorant and can be recommended for increased fluid intake in children and teenagers who are not on fluid restriction. [2]" - Choosing Pediatric OTC Medicines (US Pharmacist journal)
References
I suspect it's accurate to say that "Water is the best expectorant you can take and will help thin the mucus and loosen the cough." [1] & "For a wet cough, a glass of water is the best expectorant you can take." [2]. But these sources aren't ideal - does someone knows some more appropriate (e.g. academic) sources? -- Singkong2005 03:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In the main article, there is an external link citation to mayoclinic.com after the claim that water is a good expectorant.. but the mayoclinic article does not talk about water being an expectorant.. it doesn't even mention the word "water" in it at all. -- Wuziq 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
On dark chocolate: While pure theobromine may be effective and with fewer side-effects, the mentioned dosages of black chocolate are not. Ingesting the suggested amount(50g) could lead to very unpleasant stomach issues, as just experienced by myself with a much smaller amount. Really crappy advice people :) , but I forgive you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.233.247 ( talk) 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
"A new study by a Penn State College of Medicine research team found that honey may offer parents an effective and safe alternative than over the counter children's cough medicines."
Also from the article: " These findings are especially notable since an FDA advisory board recently recommended that over-the-counter cough and cold medicines not be given to children less than 6 years old because of their lack of effectiveness and potential for side effects."
Does anyone have a link to this information? I've read anywhere from age 2, to 4, to 6, and have been unable to confirm the FDA guideline. I feel the above info should be included. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
for two days ive been taking cough drops because of my caughing and i find it haard not to choke on them because of the huge reflex of breathing in realy fast after a cough... theyre deadly... Milldog 93 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Current article says: "Cough medicine", for example "Grandpa's old cough medicine", is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages, or even actual cough medicine such as NyQuil which in some formulations has a high alcohol content.
How can "cough medicine" be a euphemism for "actual cough medicine such as NyQuil"?
I think the author needs to sort this out. Perhaps two sentences are required. e.g. "Cough medicine is also a commonly used euphemism for whiskey and other strong alcoholic beverages. Note that some cough medicines such as NyQuil can have high alcohol content."
Ordinary Person 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
== Recreational usage ==-- 137.238.121.88 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
can something be put in about recreational usage, ie its effects, detriments Etc.
[ http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm_health2.shtml The Bad News Isn't In A Look at the Evidence for Specific Mechanisms of Dissociative-Induced Brain Damage and Cognitive Impairment]
Sorry if the coding isn't exactly right--my browser is weird :\
- Qolonoscopy
for an article on cough medicine in general, too much focuses on the 2006 china incident. -- 137.238.121.88 ( talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I took my mother to a hospital where she was subscribed "Linctus Codeine" for some cough she has been having for some time. I have been to most farmasis and was said that this drug has been banned for almost 2 years now. Is this true? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrunan ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This entry seems to concentrate primarily on pharmacology (i.e., ingredients, their effects, etc.) but I'm wondering if there should be at least a brief section summarizing some of the legal issues pertaining to the subject: for example, some states have laws limiting the sale of cough medicines containing certain ingredients; individual retail stores have initiated their own policies, and so on. (I realize it might be possible to look up each and every ingredient mentioned in the article, but something 'central' might be more convenient.)
Of course, if this particular article should be limited to pharmacological matters, a 'legal issues' section wouldn't be appropriate.
-- JWMcCalvin ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The editorial section on opioid analgesics needs to be edited and reduced to fit into scope of the article as a whole. I think it should stick to products used in current practice with maybe a paragraph or two on history of prior products. Laudanum is the stuff of Victorian Age poets Byron and Shelley. There are hundreds if not thousands of opioid analogs and derivatives that have zero practical value in modern medicine anywhere in the world. Perhaps with some citations and some fact checking, this part of the article could be moved to a page about the history of opioid products. As it stands its wordy, inaccurate, incomplete, and has way too much detail unessential to discussion of "cough medicine." All opioids have some cough suppressant properties; there are only a handful in use in modern medicine. Also, not all of them are opioids or derivatives. One that pops into mind is benzonatate. Its a good idea for people to have a reference to see the range of cough preparations, buts lets not send them to the chemists seeking Laudanum. 68.4.46.85 ( talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)John
This article asserts contamination with diethylene glycol, while Toxic cough syrup and others state ethylene glycol.
Iain marcuson ( talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It states that codeine is the strongest cough suppressant and is the gold standard that all other meds are compared too. The only problem is recent studies have found it no better than placebo. That makes it an easy gold standard to meet. "journals.lww.com". Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Much of this section seems off-topic and thus appear biased or incite unneeded comments. Most of the studies mentioned are about symptoms of colds or influenza which are much (much) broader and only indirectly related to the page topic 'Cough medicine'. Perhaps simply linking to the relevant cold or influenza pages would be more appropriate, unless the studies specifically relate to cough medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.62.204 ( talk) 08:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The article states: "Evidence however does not support many other herbalist's claims of plants as effective antitussives." There is no ref provided. While I am not suggesting that the herbalist's claims are true, I am not aware of any studies (other than echinasea)that have been done. If we can't provide studies, I feel the wording needs to be changed to reflect the lack of studies rather than to suggest that they have been done and have found the herbalist's claims to be not factual. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Many alternative treatments are used to treat the common cold. None, however, are supported by solid scientific evidence.[8]
A 2009 review found that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of zinc is mixed with respect to cough[9] and a 2000 Cochrane review found the evidence of benefit or harm in the common cold inconclusive.[10] A 2004 review however found a possible decrease in the severity and incidence of the common cold in certain sub populations.[11]
Echinacea in trials for prevention of the common cold has been found to be ineffective well for treatment an effect is seen in some trials with certain type of echinacea and no effect is seen in others.[12] Another review from 2007 claimed benefit from echinacea for the common cold[13] however further analysis found problems with the interpretations of this review.[14]
While a number of plants and Chinese herbs have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive.[15]
Here are the problems that need to be addressed:
Echinacea has solid evidence and I provided several good references. The ScienceDaily study is the Lancet study. Actually your ref #14 is the Lancet study and it found problems with the earlier New England Journal study. Also, I had four good refs for zink. And in fact, the one that you provide supports its effectiveness as well! So clearly it would seem that you are not correct when you state, "None, howerer, are supported by solid scientific evidence". It seems to me that you are just pushing your POV here rather than accept the solid evidence that I have provided.
I am unable to follow several of your links--they don't match the information, don't work, etc.
I am going to revert your post. Please discuss before you change it again so that you can point out to me where my information is incorrect. Gandydancer ( talk) 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Because of the size and scope of the UConn meta-analysis, which included only randomized, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed studies, the researchers were able to observe effects the smaller, individual studies, including the New England Journal of Medicine study which was included in the UConn review, were not able to determine alone. The UConn researchers also were able to examine Echinacea’s effects with and without the presence of additional supplements and whether exposure to viruses occurred naturally or study subjects were inoculated with a cold virus."
Refs 9 and 10 are about OTC's and zinc. The zinc is not even available. I provided 4 Pub Med refs for zinc. Did you read them? Gandydancer ( talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We have agreed that PubMed is a good source and I need to know why you have deleted all of my references for zinc. I am glad that we agree that good references are important, because I have been looking at several other articles and I found many of the references to be worthless.
I hope that we can work together on this and come up with something that is not POV on either side, but merely gives the latest information so that people can make up their own minds. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www3.cochrane.org/press/wiley/2006.01.25.echinacea_and_common_cold.pdf Gandydancer ( talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) Here you can clearly see your edit
[5]
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)There are a number of things wrong with this section. I'm looking at the "effectiveness" section, which is basically a criticism section. Some of the contents seem to manipulate words in order to prove a point. For example, the first line says: "Health care professionals have a long history of acceptance of cough and cold medicines." The citation was from a "Cough and Cold Review Group" in Wellington, New Zealand. The sentence fails to point out that cough and cold (and flu) medicines have been administered for decades *because of clinical studies showing that they ameliorate the symptoms*. Yes, there are new studies and meta-analyses that are questioning this, but it's not like doctors were duped into administering the stuff. In other words, the "acceptance" of cough and cold medicine isn't random or flippant. So it would be good to be more clear in what we're saying or just delete the sentence. I chose to delete. If someone disagrees, by all means, reinstate it and revise accordingly.
The section then cites a meta-analysis that states that cough medicines may be no more effective than placebo in treating acute cough. This is important and may have great significance, but the fact that it was a meta-analysis and not a clinical study is only glossed over. This is, however, an important detail. It means that this has opened up a question, rather than showing anything conclusively (as would well-replicated double-blind randomized placebo studies). Also I don't know if this applies to productive coughs from cold and flu or to non-productive coughs. Symptoms of the former -- productive coughs -- are, to a degree, effectively treated my going after the mucus through expectorants, which get rid of mucus, and decongestants, that use the vasoconstriction to prevent the mucus from being formed in the first place. (The efficacy of small dose decongestants has recently come under scrutiny but this is a topic that still being debated. The case is far from closed, and I suspect that the final determination will fall somewhere in the middle.) The latter -- non-productive coughs -- are harder to attack because they may be caused by many different things, including bacteria (see next paragraph), viruses or diseases (e.g. cancer). One can try cough suppressants but this likely won't stop the underlying cause. The point is that there are different types of coughs that can, at the present moment, be treated with medicines that have differing degrees of efficacy. Thus, the type of cough that this meta-analysis focuses on is very important.
The section then continues with this sentence: "In 2006, the American College of Chest Physicians published a guideline that had the dual message that many over-the-counter cough medicines are not effective, and that those that are effective in treating the symptom do not treat the underlying cause; the underlying disorder emphasized by the guideline was pertussis (whooping cough) in the elderly." There is much wrong with these sentences. First of all, the source is a dead link form www.chestnet.org. Second, the author begins by making the pronouncement that "many over-the-counter cough medicines are not effective" -- this isn't really true. The most popular cough medicines treat *productive* coughs associated with cold and flu. These work quite well on this type of cough -- especially those that attack the mucus that makes productive coughs so nasty (I touched on this in my paragraph). Anyone who's taken an expectorant has probably felt its effects as mucus is released from the nose and chest. The efficacy of expectorants has been studied clinically and documented anecdotally. So to say that these over-the-counter meds are ineffective is, at best, misleading, and, at worst, simply false. And, most importantly, these popular cough medicines are not meant for whooping cough. They have little to do with whooping cough, which is caused by a bacterium and can last for weeks or months. A doctor wouldn't prescribe most over-the-counter cough medicines for whooping cough because of this underlying problem. Expectorants and decongestants would do nothing to help, and cough suppressants *might* provide temporary relief (or might not) but would by no means stop the cough because the bacteria would still be present. The author does actually write that the available cough medicines don't "treat the underlying cause" -- obviously. They aren't meant to. They are, for the most part, indicated for an entirely different kind of cough. Thus, the inclusion of this revelation that over-the-counter cough meds don't treat whooping cough is silly. These meds don't treat arthritis or acne or anemia either. Should we mention that too?
The paragraph on cocoa compounds that act as cough suppressants was good except for the part where it said the compound was "free from [adverse] side effects in the blind tests." What the author meant to write (or, at least, I hope s/he meant to write this) is that the compound was free of the adverse effects that accompany use of the alternative cough suppressant in the study, which was the opiate codeine. Theobromine, which is the cocoa compound in question does certainly have side effects such as sleeplessness, tremors, restlessness, anxiety, diuresis and numerous other light but very-much-present effects on the heart & vascular system. (By the way, I practically copied and pasted that info from the wiki article. So let's change here sentence here at least for consistency's sake!) What theobromine doesn't have is the many of the adverse effects of codeine. Codeine can have obvious and serious side effects, mostly after prolonged use (which, like all opiates, can cause addiction) or use in amounts too large (which, like all opiates, can cause respiration to severely depress or even stop entirely).
I simply deleted the sentence: "The efficacy of cough syrups for children has long been questioned by medical professionals." This un-sourced sentence blatantly violates numerous Wiki guidelines all in one sentence. Questioned by who exactly? For a long time you say? I'll need a source on that please... The sentence may be accurate but is unacceptable in its present condition.
Sorry for the Biblical length post. It's just frustrating to read a section that's chock full of misleading and, even (in at least one case) inaccurate statements. The problem is that it all sounds authoritative but is actually riddled with these issues. This is a dangerous combo for a medical-related article.
Cheers, ask123 ( talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
So why was the paragraph on cocoa deleted? Is this http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/04-1990fjev1 no longer valid? Piechjo ( talk) 13:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Examples section contains what appears to be questionable editing. It phrased codeine in such a way as to suggest it does not suppress any coughs, which is not what the citation says and then said DM/DXM did not suppress coughs in adults, which is not what the citation says either, it says it "provides some relief". Since the DXM claim was almost the complete opposite of what the citation said, perhaps someone has a vested interest or bias in writing this information rather than making a simple editing error, it's worth keeping your eye on, 87.113.222.60 ( talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the discussion of effectiveness is best while discussing each individual med.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that antitussive redirects to cough medicine and yet is barely mentioned. What are antitussive medicines, how do they work, a list of antitussive medicines is... would seem appropriate. 67.167.106.3 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Recent studies show that antitussives are not 100% effective and not significantly effective in young children. However, This entire article gives the POV that all antitussives are unless. What crap!
1, do you thing a giant international pharmaceutal business could be sustained on fraud? If so you obviously have never heard of efficient markets theory.
2, do you think doctors who prescribe antitussives are all idiots convinced by marketing blitz?
3, do you think no person ever has gained aid in using an antitussive --- and if so why do they continue to use them? People are not idiots, in the main, I used DXM tonight an my coughing stopped. I guess I'm just an idiot too.
4, If you want clinical evidence I suggest you do a google scholar search on "antitussive". You will find many articles regarding positive antitussive effects. Do you want me to cite them all? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=antitussive&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.244.49 ( talk) 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not find anywhere how these cough medicines actually work, particularly the antitussives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add hyrdocodone to the list of antitussive because I have taken it. It was removed because of a poor reference. I tried rewording something that lacked a reference, and then a reference was added. That's fine, but the text added was for codeine. The reference is for codeine and morphine. Why isn't morphine included on this list? This article seems to be deliberately poorly written in order to discourage the use of cough medicine. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker ( talk) 09:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Trying to determine whether or not this article is biased in a way that implies cough medicines are ineffective and deliberately does not include sources and references that imply that they are. It is also missing many typical medicines such as hydrocodone and morphine. There have been attempts in the past to fix the article (scroll up on talk page) but they have always been met with resistance. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker ( talk) 10:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
So in medicine one assumes no effect until an effect is shown. One states that no effect of benefit has been found until one has been.
The whole point of a systematic review is to provide an overall summary of the evidence. Thus this conclusion over rides all RCTs and this is consensus here on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does, "CONCLUSIONS: There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It tells us a great deal that is useful. What it means is that these medications should not be recommended until proper trials are done that show this stuff to be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
*Comment: There are a lot of cross-purposes in this discussion (which I read before reading the article, which in turn is too brief and superficial for proper coherence.) I reckon we should construct a list of considerations that deserve distinct attention before we argue what should go in and in what form. One statement (whether in the article or in the Talk) will say something about "cough", another will deny it on the justification of a study on "acute cough" which failed to find effect. etc etc. Acute cough is not in such argument distinguished usefully from cough in acute diseases, or cough of acute intensity in the absence of infection (eg resulting from irritation or injury, possibly of an intensity sufficient to be a serious problem in its own right.) It does not distinguish between cough as a sign or symptom, or as a pathological condition. It does not distinguish between cough control for the patient's comfort, the patient's associates' comfort etc. And it says precious little about the nature of the benefits of medicines, failing to distinguish between superficial effects and placebos. For example, honey is dismissed as a placebo, whereas it can be very effective as a mild expectorant in a dry cough that can be of a dangerous intensity. (There are better expectorants and lozenges, but in default of anything better, it is a hell of a lot better than a materially functionless placebo!) In short, as things stand the article is of little use to the user and the talk is likely to circle and circle indefinitely unless we can mark out the points we want to make and avoid. Elsewhere on the page we had some good stuff translated from the Swedish, but we need to go further than that. JonRichfield ( talk) 07:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
*Comment: Since writing the immediately foregoing, I have had a quick look at Cough. It addresses a lot of my points. Either this article should be merged with Cough, or it should systematically address the concepts discussed there. JonRichfield ( talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) I really didn't go in depth enough to have an opinion on any excluded material. And most of the article looks OK. But there were two things that really jumped out at me when I read it. One is the "effectiveness" section. There's one sentence in the (#2) which a "gold standard" in terms of content and sourcing: "A 2012 Cochrane review concluded that "There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough". But the rest of the section seems put together in a way to be negative in ways that are really reaching from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sentence #1 and #3 made broad negative statements in the voice of Wikipedia with sourcing that is nowhere strong enough to justify doing so. Sentence #1 does in a way that sort of "slips under the radar".....using the word "questionable" could be justified on the grounds that it means "in question" while it's common meaning / connotation actually is "bad" or "not so". Then remainder of the section is sentence after sentence / saying say it doesn't work for something, but the "somethings" are typically more serious diseases not related to it's common uses.
The other thing that jumped out at me is that there is very little coverage of the main subject by it's common meaning. The common meaning of "Cough medicine" is the common stuff that they sell at the store.....billions of dollars worth per year is made of that stuff by a huge industry, but there seems to be very little coverages of that. The article seems to be more about methods /chemicals used to treat cough and discussions about the use, effectiveness and consequences of those. That's all fine, but where's the coverage of "cough medicine" by it's common meaning? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
[Invited by the bot] This article has WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX issues in its discussion of the (in)effectiveness of the medicines. I'd start by removing liberal sprinkling of "attempt" in the lead. Coughs are routinely treated with cough medicine. Whether this is effective or not is a separate question and not one we're going to resolve on Wikipedia. ~ KvnG 01:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jmh649 for reworking the lead. The fact that 2/3rds of the lead is about the ineffectiveness of cough medicine I guess accurately reflects the WP:UNDUE emphasis of this aspect in the body of the article. I think WhatamIdoing has presented some good ideas for improving coverage of the other aspects of this topic. We can improve the lead as we improve the article. ~ KvnG 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The cases of poisoning caused by counterfeit cough medications do not belong in this article. They are nothing to do with actual cough syrup, and their inclusion looks a lot like scaremongering against a product you have a personal dislike for.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
"Society and culture" is a nonsensical heading for this. Why is it even in the article? What does it tell us about cough medicine? The answer, clearly, is absolutely nothing. It fails WP:REL and only seems to be here to discredit cough medicine, although why anyone would want to do that passes my understanding.-- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 01:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Fergus has removed this ref here and replaced it with a fact tag [11] [12]
The ref says "Overall, there was absence of credible evidence" and "No practice recommendations could be drawn from this review" thus not sure if this is an improvement [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This source might be useful for covering cough & children,
PMID
22962927 , found at
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0715/p153.html .
Zad
68
05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional source:
This is from the Medical Products Agency - Sweden, translated by me (with great care not to influence the guidelines) [14]:
Hos vuxna är den akut påkomna hostan i samband med en infektion svår att påverka men lindras nog bäst med varm dryck. Olika läkemedels effekt på hosta är dåligt studerad och resultaten svårtolkade. Läkemedel mot hosta är därför inte rabattberättigade. Om torr rethosta föreligger, kan man pröva centralt hostdämpande farmaka, t ex noskapin, och är hostan mycket besvärande nattetid kan man med vederbörlig försiktighet skriva ut läkemedel innehållande etylmorfin, såsom Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In adults acute cough in conjunction with an infection is diffucult to influence, but is most likely helped best with warm beverages. The effect of different medication on cough is poorly studied, and the results difficult to interpret. Therefor pharmaceuticals against cough are not entitled to reduced rate[in Sweden]. If dry irritating cough is found it is possible to to try a centrally cough-reducing medicine, for example noskapin, och if the cough is very inconveniencing during the night one can with proper caution prescribe pharmaceuticals containing ethylmorphine such as Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
Hos barn är det viktigt att först skapa sig en bild av den underliggande infektionen. Det gäller att behandla en eventuell obstruktivitet i första hand. Får man obstruktiviteten under kontroll avtar ofta också hostan. Att ge slemlösande medel är verkningslöst. Hostan kan ofta förklaras av att det tar tid för flimmerhåren att återbildas efter infektionen och den går över efter 1–2 månader utan behandling. Ett barn i 4–7-årsåldern kan efter en period av recidiverande nedre luftvägsinfektioner ha utvecklat postinfektiös hyperreaktivitet och hostreflexen har blivit mer lättutlöst. Sannolikt finns ett kroniskt inflammatoriskt tillstånd i slemhinnan. Vid långvarig hyperreaktivitet kan man pröva inhalationssteroid i lågdos 1–2 gånger/dag. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In children it is important to form an image of the underlying infection. It is due to treat a possible obstructivity in first hand. If you get the obstructivity under controll the cough will often subside. To give exporants is without effect. The cough can often be explained by the time it takes to regain the cilia after an infection and it will pass after 1-2 months without treatment. A child 4-7 years of age can after a period of recidivating lower airway-infection have developed a postinfectious hyperactivity and the cough-reflex has become easier to provoke. Most likelt there is a chronic inflammatory condition in the mucous membrane. During prolonged hyperreactivity one can try an inhalation-steroid in low dosage 1-2 times a day. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
CFCF ( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
These edits are specifically against the comments above [15]. This user has added them 4 times now and has been reported to 3RR [16] I have a few concerns with them:
I would thus propose reverting back to the last stable version of the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on this agreement I have reverted the article back to status quo ante, those interested in seeing some of those edits should propose them for discussion individually.
Zad
68
14:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why this change was made. Thus reverted [18] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that the section you keep moving is not examples. But a discussion of the evidence for specific examples. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This "Medicines repressing the coughing itself (the antitussives) should only be used in non-productive coughing, e.g. when no slime is produced. If slime is produced, coughing is a good way to get rid of it. In that case expectorants may be used to relieve symptoms. http://medical.tpub.com/10669-c/css/10669-c_254.htm" is not a very good ref.
There is also not good evidence that expectorants relieve symptoms. And this is not an "example" of a cough medicine but a comment on effectiveness. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cough medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In my view this article should be called "cold medicine", which redirects here. These combination drugs deal with other stuff than coughing, and there are many variations that have no antitussives in them. Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Very far from a 5x expansion with no chance of qualifying for DYK; closed as unsuccessful.
5x expanded by 2604:2d80:6984:3800::aff0 ( talk). Nominated by That Coptic Guy ( talk) at 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC).
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DayQuil and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31 § DayQuil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
NyQuil and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 § NyQuil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 07:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The are four main types of cough mixture in most stores: 1) Linctus, 2) Dry Tickly, 3) Chesty, 4) Bronchial.
I would like to see a section devoted to describing how to choose which one is appropriate for particular symptoms. I think this would be most useful for most people (well, it's what I came here for !) Darkman101 ( talk) 21:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)