
pmid: 2192839
This paper is not available through the web and therefore the scanned version is made available. Abstract. In a double-blind clinical trial, a total of 463 volunteers were enrolled in a study designed to compare the effects of zinc gluconate lozenges (4.5 mg zinc) and a placebo for common cold. The tablets were to be taken every 1 - 1.5 waking hours at the first symptoms and for the following days until the common cold was over, but for no longer than 10 days. During the winter months of 1987 and 1988, 145 experienced a common cold and 130 completed the study. For final analysis, 61 patients in the zinc lozenge group and 69 patients in the placebo lozenge group were evaluated. Based on the patients' records the duration and severity of the common cold were compared. No statistically significant differences were found between the patient groups. Two recent studies using a five-time higher zinc dose per lozenge for common cold showed a significant, positive effect, but associated with frequent side-effects, first of all taste distortion. In the present study there was a weak tendency (not statistically significant, p = 0.12) towards more patients in the zinc lozenge group than in the placebo lozenge group reporting side-effects.
Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Zinc lozenges, Adolescent, Denmark, Common Cold, Nonprescription Drugs, Middle Aged, Infections, Antiviral Agents, Gluconates, Drug Administration Schedule, Placebos, Zinc, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Seasons, Randomized trial, Aged, Tablets
Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Zinc lozenges, Adolescent, Denmark, Common Cold, Nonprescription Drugs, Middle Aged, Infections, Antiviral Agents, Gluconates, Drug Administration Schedule, Placebos, Zinc, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Seasons, Randomized trial, Aged, Tablets
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 54 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
