1/16/2024 0 Comments Earthlite element massage table14Īdult Meltus® Expectorant with Decongestant (guaifenesin, pseudoephedrine, menthol)īenylin Chesty Coughs® Original (diphenhydramine, menthol)īenylin Cough and Congestion® (dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, menthol, pseudoephedrine)īenylin Dry Cough® (dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, menthol)īenylin Non‐drowsy for Chesty Coughs® (guaifenesin, menthol)īenylin Non‐drowsy for Dry Coughs® (dextromethorphan)īuttercup Syrup Honey and Lemon Flavour® (ipecacuanha, menthol)Ĭovonia Bronchial Balsam® (dextromethorphan, menthol)Ĭovonia Mentholated Cough Mixture® (liquorice, menthol, squill)Ĭovonia Night Time Formula® (dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine)Įxpulin® (chlorphenamine, menthol, pholcodine, pseudoephedrine) The cost of medical consultation and non‐prescription treatment for acute cough is estimated to be at least £104 million. Using UK figures which suggest up to 25% of URTI sufferers report cough as the main reason they consulted a healthcare professional, this translates into a loss of productivity of £875 million due to URTI associated cough. 21, 22 In the US it is estimated that $25 000 million is lost due to the common cold (excluding influenza‐related URTIs), of which $16 600 million is “on‐the‐job” productivity loss, $8000 million is due to absenteeism, and $230 million is due to caregiver absenteeism.Īssuming that the rate of viral URTI is the same in the UK as the US, adjustment for population differences (UK population estimates (2001) from US population estimates (2000) from suggests a total loss of £3500 million, of which £2300 million is due to on‐the‐job productivity loss, £1100 million is due to absenteeism, and £32 million is due to care giving. The economic burden of acute cough in the UK is not well characterised, so the figures quoted are extrapolations from US data where this subject appears to receive more attention. Once the individual sections were complete, an initial document was drafted which was then circulated to the BTS Standards of Care Committee. Consequently, recommendations have been made based on the available reliability of evidence and, where indicated, on the clinical experience of the members of the Guideline Group.īecause of the generally poor level of evidence and the consequent arbitrary nature of the recommendations, a grading system was thought to be inappropriate. A striking example of this is that a search of the Cochrane Library database to 2005 for systematic reviews of treatment of cough in adults generated one article. The existing lack of evidence made the formulation of evidence based guidelines difficult. These were applied to locate all English language studies relevant to the aetiology, diagnosis, severity staging, investigation, prognosis, complications, or treatment of chronic cough in adults over 16 years.Īt a subsequent meeting of the Guideline Group these documents were presented, discussed, and recommendations agreed upon. The search engines recommended were Medline (1966 onwards), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database. These three clinical areas were further divided into sections and individuals were identified to conduct an independent literature search for each of these and to produce a discussion document based on their literature appraisal. Consensus was obtained on these points and members of the Guideline Group were allocated to one of three subgroups concerned with acute cough, chronic cough, or specialist cough clinics. The members of the guideline group initially met to discuss content, format and purpose of the document and to consider the most appropriate methodology for the critical review of available literature and the generation of recommendations. 1.4 Methodology for generation of the guidelines
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |