Cough with reflux

Anti-backward flow treatment for chronic cough. Anti-backward flow treatment for chronic cough meta-analysis of gastro-oesophageal backward flow interventions for chronic cough associated with gastro-oesophageal backward flow is l’.efficacit?’.un anti-backward flow treatment in adults and children pr?ntant a chronic cough without subjacent pathology. ?des of troop aupr?d’.adultes have montr?ue the backward flow gastro-oesophagien (RGO) is ḻ.?ology of asp?fic chronic cough in 21?1% of l’.ensemble of the cases. Certain guides of good practice recommend an empirical treatment of the RGO in chronic cough. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and BASE PLATE, lists of r?rences of the relevant publications and contacts?its with the authors l’.efficacit?’.un treatment anti-backward flow aupr?d’.adultes and d’.enfants pr?ntant a chronic cough (3 weeks) asp?fic (without pathology of the respiratory tracts subjacent). ?des including a total of 383 patients is s?ctionn?. Three?des concern children (n=200) and two d’.entre they include infants (≤. 2 years). ?des is r?is? aupr?d’.adultes (n=149). d’.une?de, the RGO is confirm?ar an exploration compl?ntaire. crit? primary ḏ.?luation is the number of patients who gu?t not completely during the treatment (failure to cure). ḏ.?luation secondaries are: the number of patients who do not know notable ḏ.am?oration, the average diff?nce in fr?ence of cough and the fine score of cough?a of l’.?de as well as the number d’.effets ind?rables and of complications. None of the three?des aupr?d’.enfants shows a significant influence of the anti-backward flow treatment (?ississement of food, anti-backward flow measurements preserving, cisapride and domp?done). In a?de in permutation, contr?e versus placebo, a significant am?oration of the score of cough is trouv?apr? a comparative?de between cisapride, di?tic measurements, and placebo and normal food, during four months, any diff?nce n’.est. ?des contr?es versus placebo analyzes l’.efficacit?es diff?nts IPPs utilis??es variable amounts. a?de brings back a significant diff?nce ḻ.am?oration of the score of cough apr?huit weeks of treatment with l’.om?azole. Donn? d’.analyse in intention to treat for the crit? primary ḏ.?luation (failure to cure) are not available. Apr?sommation, l’.odds ratio (GOLD) is 0,24. of the crit?s ḏ.?luation secondaries do not show a diff?nce between the diff?nts IPPs and the placebo. Do the authors conclude that favorable ḻ.utilisation d’.IPP n’.a d’.effet that in certain adults pr?ntant. that what is sugg? in certain guides of good practice and size of for a?de on l’.asthme. Is another author consulting for AstraZeneca and has re?des honorary as conf?ncier for AstraZeneca. for conf?nces d’.AstraZeneca. their qualit??odologique and l’.extraction of the donn? have? r?is? by two researchers extremely ind?ndamment l’.un of l’.autre. research has livr?nze?des clinical tr?h?rog?s. between them, both for the crit?s d’.inclusion. Three?des do patients concern pr?ntant..une symptomatic laryngitis. (in a?de, only 50% of the participants pr?ntent a chronic cough), a RGO n’.est not objectiv?e F? standardis?et, in the?des r?is? in aren't services ORL, the crit?s d’.exclusion gu? sufficient for?miner of. Many a m?caments diff?nts is utilis?et, moreover, with proportionings and posologies tr?variables. Lastly, four of the eleven?des are of bad qualit??odologic (score of Jadad