Suppr超能文献

维生素C预防和治疗普通感冒。

Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold.

作者信息

Douglas R M, Hemila H, D'Souza R, Chalker E B, Treacy B

机构信息

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, 34 Nungara Place, Aranda, ACT, Australia, 2614.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18(4):CD000980. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The role of oral vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the prevention and treatment of the common cold has been a subject of controversy for at least sixty years. Public interest in the topic continues to be high and vitamin C continues to be widely sold and used as a preventive and therapeutic agent for this common ailment.

OBJECTIVES

To discover whether oral vitamin C in doses of 200 mg or more daily, reduces the incidence, duration or severity of the common cold when used either as continuous prophylaxis or after the onset of cold symptoms.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This updated review added to earlier searches, a full search of the following electronic databases: the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2004); and EMBASE (1990 to June 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Papers were excluded if a dose less than 200 mg daily of vitamin C was used; if there was no placebo comparison; if methods of outcome assessment were inadequately described; and if the report did not record any of the three study outcomes (incidence, duration or severity) in sufficient detail to enter into the meta-analysis. Three criteria of study quality were assessed: Jadad scores, placebo distinguish-ability, and allocation concealment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. 'Incidence' of colds during prophylaxis was assessed as the proportion of participants experiencing one or more colds during the study period. 'Duration' was the mean days of illness of cold episodes and 'severity' of these episodes was assessed by days confined indoors, off work or school. or by symptom severity scores.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trial comparisons involving 11,077 study participants contributed to the meta-analysis on the relative risk (RR) of developing a cold while taking prophylaxis. The pooled RR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.00). A subgroup of six trials that involved a total of 642 marathon runners, skiers, and soldiers on sub-arctic exercises reported a pooled RR of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.66). Thirty comparisons that involved 9,676 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis on common cold duration during prophylaxis . A consistent benefit was observed, representing a reduction in cold duration of 8% (95% CI 3% to 13%) for adult participants and 13.5% (95% CI 5% to 21%) for child participants. Fifteen trial comparisons that involved 7,045 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of severity of episodes experienced while on prophylaxis. The pooled results revealed a difference favouring those on vitamin C when days confined to home and off work or school were taken as a measure of severity (p = 0.02), and when restricting to studies which used symptom severity scores (p = 0.16), and for the both measures of severity combined (p = 0.004). Seven trial comparisons that involved 3,294 respiratory episodes contributed to the meta-analysis of cold duration during therapy with vitamin C that was initiated after the onset of cold symptoms, and no significant difference from placebo was seen. Four trial comparisons that involved 2,753 respiratory episodes, contributed to the meta-analysis of cold severity during therapy and no significant difference from placebo was seen.In laboratory studies, differing methods of artificial transmission of virus to vitamin C or placebo treated volunteers in residential experiments gave different results. Volunteers infected by nasal installation showed small or no benefit from vitamin C, whereas a group who were infected more naturally, reported less severe symptom severity scores (p = 0.04).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The failure of vitamin C supplementation to reduce the incidence of colds in the normal population indicates that routine mega-dose prophylaxis is not rationally justified for community use. But evidence shows that it could be justified in persons exposed to brief periods of severe physical exercise and/or cold environments. Also, the consistent and statistically significant small benefits on duration and severity for those using regular vitamin C prophylaxis indicates that vitamin C plays some role in respiratory defence mechanisms. The trials in which vitamin C was introduced at the onset of colds as therapy did not show any benefit in doses up to 4 grams daily, but one large trial reported equivocal benefit from an 8 gram therapeutic dose at onset of symptoms.

摘要

背景

口服维生素C(抗坏血酸)在预防和治疗普通感冒中的作用至少六十年来一直存在争议。公众对该话题的兴趣依然浓厚,维生素C仍作为这种常见疾病的预防和治疗药物被广泛销售和使用。

目的

探讨每日口服200毫克或更高剂量的维生素C,在持续预防或感冒症状出现后使用时,是否能降低普通感冒的发病率、持续时间或严重程度。

检索策略

本次更新的综述在早期检索基础上,对以下电子数据库进行了全面检索:Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)(2004年第2期);医学索引数据库(MEDLINE,1966年1月至2004年6月);以及荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE,1990年至2004年6月)。

选择标准

如果使用的维生素C剂量每日小于200毫克;如果没有安慰剂对照;如果结局评估方法描述不充分;以及如果报告没有足够详细地记录三项研究结局(发病率、持续时间或严重程度)以纳入荟萃分析,则排除相关论文。评估了三项研究质量标准:Jadad评分、安慰剂区分度和分配隐藏。

数据收集与分析

两名综述作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。预防期间感冒的“发病率”评估为研究期间经历一次或多次感冒的参与者比例。“持续时间”是感冒发作的平均患病天数,这些发作的“严重程度”通过限制在室内、不工作或不上学的天数,或通过症状严重程度评分来评估。

主要结果

29项试验比较涉及11077名研究参与者,用于荟萃分析预防期间患感冒的相对风险(RR)。合并RR为0.96(95%CI 0.92至1.00)。一个包含6项试验的亚组,共涉及642名马拉松运动员、滑雪者和进行亚北极地区训练的士兵,报告的合并RR为0.50(95%CI 0.38至0.66)。30项比较涉及9676次呼吸道发作,用于荟萃分析预防期间普通感冒的持续时间。观察到一致的益处,成年参与者感冒持续时间减少8%(95%CI 3%至13%),儿童参与者减少13.5%(95%CI 5%至21%)。15项试验比较涉及7045次呼吸道发作,用于荟萃分析预防期间发作的严重程度。汇总结果显示,当以限制在家中和不工作或不上学的天数作为严重程度衡量标准时(p = 0.02),以及当仅限于使用症状严重程度评分的研究时(p = 0.16),以及综合两种严重程度衡量标准时(p = 0.004),服用维生素C的人有优势。7项试验比较涉及3294次呼吸道发作,用于荟萃分析感冒症状出现后开始使用维生素C治疗期间的感冒持续时间,与安慰剂无显著差异。4项试验比较涉及2753次呼吸道发作,用于荟萃分析治疗期间的感冒严重程度,与安慰剂无显著差异。在实验室研究中

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验