Systematic review and meta-analysis: proton pump inhibitors slightly decrease the severity of chronic cough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Montreal consensus recognizes chronic cough as an extra-esophageal manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effects of acid-suppressive medications in adults with non-specific chronic cough. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022368769). Placebo-controlled randomized trials evaluating the impact of acid-suppressive medications on persistent cough were included. The systematic search was performed on the 1st of November 2022 in three databases. A random-effects model was used for the calculations. The effect size was the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total number of 11 double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trials were included in the meta-analysis. Data showed that compared to placebo, PPIs decreased the severity of cough (SMD 0.33; CI 0.05; 0.61). Therapeutic response was not different in patients with non-specific chronic cough only, compared to those with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Prolonged treatment durations did not result in greater symptomatic improvement, with SMD 0.33 (CI - 0.22; 0.88), 0.31 (CI - 1.74; 2.35), 0.32 (CI - 0.29; 0.93) and 0.34 (CI - 0.16; 0.85), following 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment, respectively. The pooled analysis of the improvement in quality of life with PPIs found an SMD of 0.39 (CI - 0.51; 1.29). PPIs mildly decrease the severity of non-specific chronic cough, irrespective of treatment duration.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".