INTRODUCTION:The COVID-19 pandemic onset had a global debilitating impact on individuals and on burgeoning careers. In 2021, the Children's Oncology Group Young Investigators Committee, Young SIOP (International Society of Paediatric Oncology) Network, and Young SIOPE (European Society for Paediatric Oncology) co-sponsored a survey to explore the impacts of the first year of the pandemic on early-career pediatric oncology professionals with respect to working practices, productivity, professional and career development, personal wellbeing, and changing childcare needs. METHODS:The survey comprised demographic, multiple-choice, and free-text questions, and was distributed via email and social media with English, French, and Spanish versions available. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to compare quantitative data by self-designated gender and country of origin. Qualitative data were described using content analysis. RESULTS:Professionals (N = 499, 26.3% male, 77.2% MDs) in 48 countries (77.6% high income) responded in English (79.4%), Spanish (12.4%), and French (8.2%). Respondents had difficulty obtaining and keeping jobs (26.9%), worsened overall academic productivity (50.7%, with higher rates among bench scientists, p < 0.01), and decreased career opportunities (40.9%). Childcare challenges impacted 56.7% of respondents and was felt more negatively among women (p = 0.008) and in high-income settings (p < 0.0001). Qualitative data (n = 300) highlighted these differences were often attributable to diminished professional/personal boundaries and impacted their personal wellbeing. CONCLUSION:The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted early-career academic and clinical professionals working in pediatric oncology, with unique challenges noted among those with childcare responsibilities. Career disruptions that resulted from the pandemic should be considered and mitigated by governing bodies and hiring institutions.

We are researchers working within paediatric health sciences across the UK. We would like to raise our concerns about a novel, seemingly growing issue within participant recruitment for qualitative research in child health; fraudulent participants, ‘bots’, also known as malicious automated software, and ‘human bots’, people paid by third parties to undermine studies. We want to raise awareness of the impact that this is having at all levels; to young people who are genuinely impacted by a condition, public understanding of health, integrity of scientific research, development of evidencebased child health practice and policy, and ourselves as researchers. Although there is literature on this topic, this has focused on questionnaire studies, where ineligible individuals complete online research to profit from incentives. Individually, we have all experienced something different; fraudulent individuals posing as young people and caregivers completing screening questionnaires and committing to joining online focus groups or interviews. Said participants have attempted to bypass screening measures designed to prevent such activity (eg, asking specific questions to check for genuine, consistent responses; a known method of detecting fraudulent participants or ‘bots’). It must be noted that in all studies, recruitment occurred across numerous social media platforms (including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram), with voucher payments offered as reimbursement in most studies (ranging from £20 to £40). What we are experiencing is bizarre and concerning; the sophistication of the messages received goes beyond recognised language of automated software, mirroring human communication and referencing study details. This has the potential to undermine the integrity of key data and compromises researcher and genuine participant safety, should these fraudulent individuals end up in research settings. One of us had over 150 fraudulent expressions of interest in less than 24 hours. This wastes time and takes up valuable, often scarce resources. Furthermore, the fabrication of serious health conditions (in our experience cancer, gastrointestinal conditions and eating disorders) is worrying. This is not a new phenomenon, but using this to influence major research studies may be. We should also highlight that all of the affected researchers are young women, another factor which may influence the type of research targeted in this way. Below, we highlight a series of ‘red flags’ to support identification of fraudulent participants in child health research (table 1). These are based on our experiences and are not allencompassing. We propose that a single ‘red flag’ is not enough to identify a fraudulent participant, but instead, may raise suspicion, prompting further followup. Our attempts to address these have included further screening with participants via questionnaires, video or phone calls. Out of 483 expressions of interest, we identified at least 385 fraudulent participants using enhanced screening (80%). Our experiences highlight the importance of rigorous screening, prior to informed consent, to support the rigour of qualitative child health research. Financial incentives can increase the rate of response from participants but may also motivate ineligible participants to deceive about their eligibility for study enrolment to secure payment. To mitigate the risk of fraudulent activity, we recommend that any financial incentives are omitted from advertisements shared on social media.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is the commonest soft tissue sarcoma in children. Around one-third of children with rhabdomyosarcoma experience relapse or have refractory disease, which is associated with a poor prognosis. This systematic review of early phase studies in pediatric relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma was conducted to inform future research and provide accurate information to families and clinicians making difficult treatment choices. Nine databases and five trial registries were searched in June 2021. Early phase studies of interventions for disease control in patients under 18 years old with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma were eligible. No language/geographic restrictions were applied. Studies conducted after 2000 were included. Survival outcomes, response rates, quality of life and adverse event data were extracted. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment (Downs and Black Checklist) were conducted by two researchers. Owing to heterogeneity in the included studies, narrative synthesis was conducted. Of 16,965 records screened, 129 published studies including over 1100 relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma patients were eligible. Most studies evaluated systemic therapies. Where reported, 70% of studies reported a median progression-free survival ≤6 months. Objective response rate was 21.6%. Adverse events were mostly hematological. One-hundred and seven trial registry records of 99 studies were also eligible, 63 of which report they are currently recruiting. Study quality was limited by poor and inconsistent reporting. Outcomes for children with relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma who enroll on early phase studies are poor. Improving reporting quality and consistency would facilitate the synthesis of early phase studies in relapsed/refractory rhabdomyosarcoma (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021266254).

Introduction Parents of a child with cancer want to be involved in making treatment decisions for their child. Underpinning and informing these decisions are parents’ individual values and preferences. Parents of a child who has a poor prognosis cancer and who subsequently dies can experience decisional regret. To support parents, and potentially reduce decisional regret, identifying the values and preferences of parents who are making these treatment decisions may enhance the support that can be provided by healthcare professionals. An increased understanding will support future work in this area and identify research gaps that could strengthen support strategies in clinical practice. The aim of this scoping review is to explore parent values and preferences underpinning treatment decision making when their child is receiving cancer-directed therapy for a poor prognosis cancer.Methods and analysis The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will be followed. An initial database search of CINHAL and MEDLINE will be conducted to analyse the keywords using subject headings and Medical Subject Headings terms. Articles will be initially screened on title and abstract. The reference and citation lists of the full-text articles to be included will be searched using Web of Science. Articles will be independently reviewed by two reviewers and any discrepancies discussed with a third reviewer. Data extracted will be presented in tabular, diagrams and descriptive summaries.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. This review will inform further research with parents to understand their values and preferences when making repeated treatment decisions when their child has a poor prognosis cancer. All outputs will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.This scoping review is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n7j9f).

Background: Previous studies have found that parents of children with cancer desire more prognostic information than is often given even when prognosis is poor. We explored in audio-recorded consultations the kinds of information they seek. Methods: Ethnographic study including observation and audio recording of consultations at diagnosis. Consultations were transcribed and analyzed using an interactionist perspective including tools drawn from conversation and discourse analysis. Results: Enrolled 21 parents and 12 clinicians in 13 cases of children diagnosed with a high-risk brain tumor (HRBT) over 20 months at a tertiary pediatric oncology center. Clinicians presented prognostic information in all cases. Through their questions, parents revealed what further information they desired. Clinicians made clear that no one could be absolutely certain what the future held for an individual child. Explicit communication about prognosis did not satisfy parents' desire for information about their own child. Parents tried to personalize prognostic information and to apply it to their own situation. Parents moved beyond prognostic information presented and drew conclusions, which could change over time. Parents who were present in the same consultations could form different views of their child's prognosis. Conclusion: Population level prognostic information left parents uncertain about their child's future. The need parents revealed was not for more such information but rather how to use the information given and how to apply it to their child in the face of such uncertainty. Further research is needed on how best to help parents deal with uncertainty and make prognostic information actionable.

A successful academic interview has been reported as the most important factor contributing to ranking of candidates for residency. However, little published guidance exists to help a prospective oncologist or researcher give such an interview. The International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) Young Investigator (YI) Network and Children's Oncology Group (COG) YI group thus cosponsored a survey of senior investigators seeking their advice.

Background: Many parents report a strong desire to take on information-giving roles, and believe they are best positioned to discuss their child's illness with their child. Healthcare professionals have a supporting role to reduce the burden on parents who feel responsible for conveying information to their child and other family members. Objective: To examine parents' and healthcare professionals' perceptions of roles in receiving and communicating information when a child is diagnosed with and treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Design, setting and participants: We used the principles of a grounded theory approach. This was a single site study, recruiting from a principal children's cancer treatment centre in the United Kingdom. The sample included parents of children receiving and completed treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n = 28), and healthcare professionals (n = 34). Methods: Methods included individual interviews, face-to-face and telephone, focus groups, and an online forum. Findings: Communication 'touch points' are many over the course of a child's cancer journey. We describe often 'mismatched' communication encounters where those seeking information and those providing information have different goals. Healthcare professionals in the encounter have expertise at the outset while parents have less expertise, but this expertise grows over time and this can increase the perceptions of this 'mismatch' and create different challenges. Conclusions: Considered in the context of middle range transition theory, we might suggest that parental foreground (seeking information directly) and background (passive actors) roles are the result of differing levels of uncertainty, and depend on the situation and preferences and child and family needs that may present differently over time in different contexts. Our work contributes to the emerging consensus that communication is more than a core set of skills that healthcare professionals just need to learn: clear specifications of mutual roles, responsibilities and a shared understanding of goals is also essential.

Increased emphasis on the child's voice and point of view in care and treatment has led to an expansion in the development of methods to access and identify their perspectives. Drawing on our experiences in a study of children with leukemia in hospital, this article explains the challenges and opportunities that arise in the use of five commonly used methods in a study of hospitalized children's experiences with health care professionals, including the "Draw and Write" technique, a sticker activity, a paper-person exercise, informal interviews, and participant observation. Each of these methods was examined with regard to ease of use, data generation, and utility of data for accessing children's perspectives and development of initial clinical guidance.

Research with young people suffering from a long-term illness has more recently incorporated the use of visual methods to foster engagement of research participants from a wide age range, capture the longitudinal and complex factors involved in young people's experiences of care, and allow young people to express their views in multiple ways. Despite its contributions, these methods are not always easy to implement and there is a possibility that they might not generate the results or engagement initially anticipated by researchers. We hope to expand on the emerging discussion on the use of participatory visual methods by presenting the practical issues we have faced while using this methodology during different stages of research: informed assent/consent, data collection, and the dissemination of findings. We propose a combination of techniques to make sure that the research design is flexible enough to allow research participants to shape the research process according to their needs and interests.

BACKGROUNDXerostomia is the subjective sensation of dry mouth. Common causes of xerostomia include adverse effects of many commonly prescribed medications, disease (e.g. Sjogren's Syndrome) and radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancers. Non-pharmacological techniques such as acupuncture or mild electrostimulation may be used to improve symptoms.OBJECTIVESTo assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions administered to stimulate saliva production for the relief of dry mouth.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 16th April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 16th April 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16th April 2013), AMED via OVID (1985 to 16th April 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1981 to 16th April 2013), and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16th April 2013). The metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were also searched to identify ongoing and completed trials. References lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. There were no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status.SELECTION CRITERIAWe included parallel group randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to treat dry mouth, where participants had dry mouth symptoms at baseline.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISAt least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assess risk of bias and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes or where different scales were used to assess an outcome, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) together with 95% CIs. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information.MAIN RESULTSThere were nine studies (total 366 participants randomised) included in this review of non-pharmacological interventions for dry mouth which were divided into three comparisons. Eight studies were assessed at high risk of bias in at least one domain and the remaining study was at unclear risk of bias.Five small studies (total 153 participants, with dry mouth following radiotherapy treatment) compared acupuncture with placebo. Four were assessed at high risk and one at unclear risk of bias. Two trials reported outcome data for dry mouth in a form suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of these two trials (70 participants, low quality evidence) showed no difference between acupuncture and control in dry mouth symptoms (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.14, P value 0.17, I(2) = 39%) with the confidence intervals including both a possible reduction or a possible increase in dry mouth symptoms. Acupuncture was associated with more adverse effects (tiny bruises and tiredness which were mild and temporary). There was a very small increase in unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) at the end of 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) (MD 0.02 ml/minute, 95% CI 0 to 0.04, P value 0.04, I(2) = 57%), and this benefit persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence) (UWS, MD 0.06 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11, P value 0.03, I(2) = 10%). For the outcome of stimulated whole saliva (SWS, three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) there was a benefit favouring acupuncture (MD 0.19 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31, P value 0.002, I(2) = 1%) an effect which also persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (SWS MD 0.28 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47, P value 0.004, I(2) = 0%) (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence).Two small studies, both at high risk of bias, compared the use of an electrostimulation device with a placebo device in participants with Sjögren's Syndrome (total 101 participants). A further study, also at high risk of bias, compared acupuncture-like electrostimulation of different sets of points in participants who had previously been treated with radiotherapy. None of these studies reported the outcome of dry mouth. There was no difference between electrostimulation and placebo in the outcomes of UWS or SWS at the end of the 4-week treatment period in the one study (very low that provided data for these outcomes. No adverse effects were reported.A single study at high risk of bias, compared the stimulatory effect of powered versus manual toothbrushing and found no difference for the outcomes of UWS or SWS.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThere is low quality evidence that acupuncture is no different from placebo acupuncture with regard to dry mouth symptoms, which is the most important outcome. This may be because there were insufficient participants included in the two trials to show a possible effect or it may be that there was some benefit due to 'placebo' acupuncture which could have biased the effect to the null. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms. It is well known that dry mouth symptoms may be problematic even when saliva production is increased, yet only two of the trials that evaluated acupuncture reported dry mouth symptoms, a worrying reporting bias. There is some low quality evidence that acupuncture results in a small increase in saliva production in patients with dry mouth following radiotherapy.There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms or saliva production in patients with Sjögren's Syndrome. Reported adverse effects of acupuncture are mild and of short duration, and there were no reported adverse effects from electrostimulation.

BackgroundMany dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing or both of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), that does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing.ObjectivesThe objectives were: 1) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; 2) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; 3) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing with or without oral hygiene instruction (OHI) on periodontal health; and 4) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health.Search methodsWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 15 July 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 15 July 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 15 July 2013). We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing and completed studies to July 2013. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments (excluding split-mouth trials) with and without OHI in healthy dentate adults, without severe periodontitis.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and, where results were meta-analysed, we used a fixed-effect model as there were fewer than four studies. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information.Main results Three studies were included in this review with 836 participants included in the analyses. All three studies are assessed as at unclear risk of bias. The numerical results are only presented here for the primary outcome gingivitis. There were no useable data presented in the studies for the outcomes of attachment change and tooth loss. No studies reported any adverse effects.- Objective 1: Scale and polish versus no scale and polishOnly one trial provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. This study was conducted in general practice and compared both six-monthly and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments with no treatment. This study showed no evidence to claim or refute benefit for scale and polish treatments for the outcomes of gingivitis, calculus and plaque. The MD for six-monthly scale and polish, for the percentage of index teeth with bleeding at 24 months was -2% (95% CI -10% to 6%; P value = 0.65), with 40% of the sites in the control group with bleeding. The MD for 12-monthly scale and polish was -1% (95% CI -9% to 7%; P value = 0.82). The body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 2: Scale and polish at different time intervalsTwo studies, both at unclear risk of bias, compared routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals. When comparing six with 12 months there was insufficient evidence to determine a difference for gingivitis at 24 months SMD -0.08 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.10). There were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals, in particular between three and 12 months for the outcome of gingivitis at 24 months, with OHI, MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; P value = 0.003) and without OHI MD -0.21 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.12; P value < 0.001) (mean per patient measured on 0-3 scale), based on one study. There was some evidence of a reduction in calculus. This body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 3: Scale and polish with and without OHIOne study provided data for the comparison of scale and polish treatment with and without OHI. There was a reduction in gingivitis for the 12-month scale and polish treatment when assessed at 24 months MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) in favour of including OHI. There were also significant reductions in plaque for both three and 12-month scale and polish treatments when OHI was included. The body of evidence was once again assessed as of low quality.- Objective 4: Scale and polish provided by a dentist compared with a dental care professionalNo studies were found which compared the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments. High quality trials conducted in general dental practice settings with sufficiently long follow-up periods (five years or more) are required to address the objectives of this review.

BACKGROUNDXerostomia (the feeling of dry mouth) is a common symptom especially in older adults. Causes of dry mouth include medications, autoimmune disease (Sjögren's Syndrome), radiotherapy or chemotherapy for cancer, hormone disorders and infections.OBJECTIVESTo determine which topical treatments for dry mouth are effective in reducing this symptom.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (28 October 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4 2011), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 28 October 2011), AMED via OVID (1985 to 28 October 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 28 October 2011).SELECTION CRITERIAWe included randomised controlled trials of topical interventions such as lozenges, sprays, mouthrinses, gels, oils, chewing gum or toothpastes for the treatment of dry mouth symptom. We classified interventions into two broad categories, saliva stimulants and saliva substitutes, and these were compared with either placebo or another intervention. We included both parallel group and crossover trials.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTwo or more review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted for additional information as required.MAIN RESULTSThirty-six randomised controlled trials involving 1597 participants met the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared saliva stimulants to placebo, nine trials compared saliva substitutes to placebo, five trials compared saliva stimulants directly with saliva substitutes, 18 trials directly compared two or more saliva substitutes, and two trials directly compared two or more saliva stimulants. Only one trial was at low risk of bias and 17 were at high risk of bias. Due to the range of interventions, comparisons and outcome measures in the trials, meta-analysis was possible for only a few comparisons. Oxygenated glycerol triester (OGT) saliva substitute spray shows evidence of effectiveness compared to an electrolyte spray (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.15) which corresponds to approximately a mean difference of 2 points on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for mouth dryness. Both integrated mouthcare systems (toothpaste + gel + mouthwash) and oral reservoir devices show promising results but there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend their use. Although chewing gum is associated with increased saliva production in the majority of those with residual capacity, there is no evidence that gum is more or less effective than saliva substitutes.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThere is no strong evidence from this review that any topical therapy is effective for relieving the symptom of dry mouth. OGT spray is more effective than an aqueous electrolyte spray (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) which is approximately equivalent to a mean difference of 2 points on a 10-point VAS scale for mouth dryness. Chewing gums appear to increase saliva production in those with residual secretory capacity and may be preferred by patients, but there is no evidence that gum is better or worse than saliva substitutes. Integrated mouthcare systems and oral reservoir devices may be helpful but further research is required to confirm this. Well designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trials of topical interventions for dry mouth, which are designed and reported according to CONSORT guidelines, are required to provide evidence to guide clinical care. For many people the symptom of dry mouth is a chronic problem and trials should evaluate whether treatments are palatable, effective in reducing xerostomia, as well as the long-term effects of treatments on quality of life of those with chronic dry mouth symptoms.

The management of cough in adults with respiratory and non-respiratory illnesses is suboptimal and based mostly on clinical opinions rather than evidence. A systematic review was carried out assessing all trials in adult patients with respiratory and non-respiratory diseases (excluding cancer) that had chronic cough as primary or secondary outcome. A total of 1177 trials were retrieved and 75 met the criteria for inclusion in the review. The vast majority were in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cough was the primary outcome in less than one-quarter of the studies. The measurement of cough was variable, mostly using unvalidated scales or being part of an overall 'symptoms' score. Positive results were overall seen with the use of corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists, mast cell stabilizers, ipratropium bromide, neltenexine, iodinised glycerol and lidocaine. Speech pathology training and symptom monitoring through SMS messages (accompanied by treatment adjustments) have also shown promise. Evidence for established anti-tussive agents such as codeine was scarce, with positive studies from the 1960s, whilst more recent studies showed no effect in patients with COPD. Many studies had conflicting results. It is imperative that the management of cough and its evidence base be improved, using higher quality research designs and with cough being the primary outcome of trials.