SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Honey vs. pharmacological treatment for acute cough in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare honey with pharmacological treatment in pediatric patients with acute cough. Studies were searched across 5 databases. Analyzed outcomes were cough frequency, severity, and bothersomeness, alongside its impact on the sleep of both children and caregivers. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager Web tool. A post-hoc subgroup and leave-one-out sensitivity analysis were conducted to evaluate the influence of individual studies and medication class on heterogeneity. 7 studies were included in the systematic review and 6 in the meta-analysis, totaling 576 patients. Among them, 305 (53%) received honey. Participants' mean age ranged from 3 to 5 years, and follow-up duration was limited to 3 days. The primary analysis showed high heterogeneity and no statistically significant differences across most endpoints, except for cough effect on child's sleep, which was significantly reduced in the honey group (MD: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.01; p = 0.05). After sensitivity analysis, honey significantly improved all outcomes, including cough frequency, severity, bothersomeness, sleep quality of children and caregivers, and global score. Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent results regardless of the pharmacological comparator used. Alone, the honey-vs-dextromethorphan group showed significant benefit in two endpoints.
conclusionWhile the primary analysis demonstrated comparable efficacy between interventions across most endpoints, except for child sleep quality, exploratory post-hoc sensitivity analyses revealed a potential signal of honey superiority across all outcomes. Although these findings should be regarded as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive, the potential clinical benefit, combined with the established risks of pediatric antitussives, supports honey as a promising, low-risk alternative.
trial registrationCRD420261356244. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Pediatric acute cough commonly leads to inappropriate antitussive medication prescribing. • Honey outperforms placebo or no treatment for cough symptoms relief ≥ 10 or comorbidities. WHAT IS NEW: • Post-hoc sensitivity analysis suggests that honey is more effective than pharmacological therapy across all symptom domains. • Honey should be actively promoted over antitussives medications in children, given its safety and low cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.