You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Amoxycillin-clavulanate for chronic wet cough in children: cautious interpretation of study findings warranted
  1. Patrick Stark1,
  2. Rachel Heenan1,
  3. Francesca Orsani2,
  4. Kim Jachno2,
  5. Tom G Connell1,3,4
  1. 1 Department of General Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tom G Connell, Department of General Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Flemington Road, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia; tom.connell{at}rch.org.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202885

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the recent paper by Marchant et al comparing amoxicillin-clavunate to placebo for the treatment of chronic wet cough in children.1 The authors should be commended for attempting a randomised controlled clinical trial in this group of patients that often present paediatricians with a management dilemma. Nevertheless, we have significant concerns regarding several aspects of the study methodology, analysis and interpretation and feel that the authors have overstated their conclusions. We therefore urge caution in interpretation of the study findings.

    First, …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the content of the letter and have seen and approved the final version.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles