Zinc for the treatment of the common cold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating zinc for the treatment of the common cold are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc for such use. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and other sources for studies published through to Sept. 30, 2011. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing orally administered zinc with placebo or no treatment. Assessment for study inclusion, data extraction and risk-of-bias analyses were performed in duplicate. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 17 trials involving a total of 2121 participants. Compared with patients given placebo, those receiving zinc had a shorter duration of cold symptoms (mean difference -1.65 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.50 to -0.81); however, heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 95%). Zinc shortened the duration of cold symptoms in adults (mean difference -2.63, 95% CI -3.69 to -1.58), but no significant effect was seen among children (mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.25). Heterogeneity remained high in all subgroup analyses, including by age, dose of ionized zinc and zinc formulation. The occurrence of any adverse event (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46), bad taste (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.16) and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.27) were more common in the zinc group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis showed that oral zinc formulations may shorten the duration of symptoms of the common cold. However, large high-quality trials are needed before definitive recommendations for clinical practice can be made. Adverse effects were common and should be the point of future study, because a good safety and tolerance profile is essential when treating this generally mild illness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".