Duration of symptoms of respiratory tract infections in children: systematic review

Selection

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they recruited otherwise healthy children (birth to 18 years) with acute respiratory infections presenting to primary care or emergency department settings; were conducted in high income countries, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development¹⁰; provided data on time to resolution of symptoms or complete duration of symptoms; involved placebo or no treatment arms of controlled non-surgical treatment trials or prospective observational studies; and reported in English. Although respiratory tract infections can include a cluster of various symptoms, certain symptoms (such as cough) predominate in clinical experience and in published trials, depending on a child’s illness, ability to describe his or her symptoms, and/or parental recognition and interpretation of symptoms.¹¹ Given this, we chose to not only include studies of children presenting with clustered symptoms (such as common cold or undifferentiated respiratory tract infections) but also those of individual symptoms (such as sore throat). We included studies of children presenting with primary complaints of earache (acute otitis media), sore throat (or pharyngitis or tonsillitis), cough (or acute bronchitis, bronchiolitis, or croup), and common cold (or upper respiratory tract infection).

We excluded studies of children with chronic, recurrent, or complicated infections; experimentally induced infection; or medical conditions associated with a high risk of serious infections (such as cystic fibrosis, immunodeficiency). We also excluded studies conducted in inpatient settings or in low or middle income countries as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, where the risk of complications from infection might be higher. Studies that reported data on both children and adults were included only if data were presented separately by age. We excluded trials comparing two active treatments, those of prophylactic or adjuvant treatments, and retrospective studies; studies with follow-up of 24 hours or less; and studies that presented symptom duration only before consultation, assessed only incidence or prevalence, or presented duration of symptoms by symptom score or individual pathogen.

Search

We identified relevant intervention trials and observational studies using two search strategies (appendix 1). Firstly, we conducted searches in PubMed, DARE, and CINAHL (all databases searched through July 2012) to identify randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of trials for each of the four symptoms of respiratory tract infection (sore throat, cough, common cold, and earache). Search terms included clinical syndromes and symptoms, study design, and paediatric population with both MeSH and free text terms. We also hand searched the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections and Ear, Nose and Throat Groups for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Secondly, we searched PubMed (1966-July 2012) for observational studies of children with acute sore throat, cough, common cold, or earache using terms for clinical syndromes and symptoms, child, and limited by publication type (that is, excluding clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials). We reviewed reference lists of selected studies identified using both of these strategies and searched related citations to identify additional references. One author (TAV) screened titles and abstracts using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors (TAV and MT) reviewed the full text of all potentially relevant studies to determine final inclusion.

Data extraction

Two authors (TAV and MT) independently extracted data using a predetermined template. Authors were not blinded to any aspect of the studies during extraction, and disagreements were resolved by consensus (TAV, MT, and DIB/CH). We extracted data on country and setting of study; population; length of follow-up; description of presenting symptom(s) and/or diagnostic criteria; description of intervention and control; definition of usual care in placebo arms of trials; specified outcome(s); outcome assessor (parent, child, clinician, or investigator); method of outcome assessment; and data on adverse events (complications, re-consultations, admission to hospital).

The outcomes of interest were time to resolution of symptoms or duration of symptoms. These included time taken for prespecified proportions (such as 50%) of children’s symptoms to have resolved, the study population, proportion of children with unresolved symptoms at follow-up, or mean or median duration of symptoms. For studies of common cold or undefined/non-specific respiratory tract infections, we extracted data on symptom duration for the cluster of symptoms comprising a cold as defined in each study (reported in appendix 2). We extracted data from studies that reported proportions of children with symptoms at time points, provided continuous data from which proportions could be inferred, or presented mean (and 95% confidence interval) durations of symptoms. When available we also extracted data on symptom duration before consultation. We extracted data only from the non-intervention (that is, placebo) arms of included randomised controlled trials. Data from line graphs were extracted with DigitizeIt software (DigitizeIt 2010, version 4.0.2, Carrascal).

Quality assessment

Two authors (TAV and MT) independently assessed quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias framework for randomised controlled trials¹² and the critical appraisal skills programme¹³ framework for observational studies. Disagreements were resolved by consensus (TAV, MT, and DIB/CH). Judgment regarding risk of bias (“high,” “low,” or “unclear risk of bias”) was made for each criterion.

Data synthesis

We report data on duration of symptoms for each symptom category from each study. When possible (that is, at time points included in two or more studies) we calculated the pooled daily mean proportions and 95% confidence intervals for symptom duration and presented summary data visually. Given the heterogeneity in study populations and inconsistent methods of assessment, we have also presented the individual study data in addition to pooled means to display the variation in symptom durations. We identified the mean time point (as number of whole days) at which the symptom was resolved in 50% and in 90% of children with that particular symptom. Though we had planned to carry out subgroup analyses based on age and symptom duration before enrolment, we were unable to do so because of insufficient data.

Earache

We included data from seven trials with 958 children^{14 15 16 17 18 19 20} and three observational studies with 451 children^{21 22 23} (tables 1 and 2). Included trials and studies came from the UK,^{14 23} USA,¹⁶ Netherlands,¹⁵ Sweden,¹⁹ Denmark,¹⁸ Finland,²⁰ Canada,¹⁷ Poland,²² and Israel²¹ (appendix 2).

Earache was generally present less than four days before study entry, and follow-up ranged from eight days to four months in randomised controlled trials, and 21 days to a year in observational studies. In most studies, parents assessed symptom duration^{14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23} using daily symptom diaries, telephone interviews, or in person questionnaires. Most studies had low risk of bias, though assessment of bias was difficult because of unclear methods in two studies^{18 23} (appendix 3). Risk of bias was highest in the study by Neumark and colleagues,¹⁹ which used an open trial design with no blinding among parents or clinicians.

Among the five studies that reported mean duration, symptoms of earache lasted from half a day to nine days^{14 15 19 21 22} (table 1). Based on the pooled results from 10 studies, 50% of children’s symptoms had resolved at day three and 90% by days seven to eight (fig 3). Damoiseaux and colleagues¹⁵ and Greenberg and colleagues²¹ reported fever (as well as earache) lasting three days (median) and 2.9 days (mean, SD 2.6), respectively.

Sore throat

We included six trials on 241 children^{24 25 26 27 28 29} and one observational study of 103 infants.²² Most trials took place in North America,^{24 26 27} with the remainder from the UK,²⁵ Italy,²⁸ and the Netherlands.²⁹ The single observational study was conducted in Poland.²²

Characteristics of patients varied across studies (appendix 2). Average duration of illness before entry into the study ranged from less than one to less than four days. Outcomes were assessed by parents in all studies,^{22 24 25 26 27 28 29} clinicians in two studies,^{26 28} and children in three studies,^{25 27 28} with length of follow-up ranging from two days to a week or, in two studies,^{22 27} until symptoms resolved. Most studies had a low risk of bias, except one in which blinding of outcome assessors was impossible because of the mode of intervention delivery (intramuscular penicillin v oral placebo)²⁶ (appendix 3). Measurement of outcomes varied considerably across studies, involving different methods, assessors, and lengths of follow-up. Outcome measurement was based on standardised scales in only two studies^{24 27}; the remainder^{22 25 29} used parental assessment (by questionnaire, symptom diary, or overall parental assessment), or clinician assessment.²⁸

Among the four studies that reported mean duration, symptoms of sore throat lasted from two days to 6.7 days^{22 24 27 29} (table 3). Though we could not pool data from the three studies that reported the proportion of children with symptoms because of insufficient data at several time points, 33-37% of children still had sore throat symptoms at day three^{25 26 28} (fig 4, table 3). Based on visual inspection of the data, time to complete resolution did not seem to be related to group A β haemolytic streptococcal infection or duration of symptoms before enrolment. The single study that reported on duration of fever reported that 17% of children had fever for less than a day, 11% had fever one to two days, 44% had fever for two to three days, and 28% had fever for more than three days.²⁶

Cough (acute cough, bronchiolitis, and croup)

We included six trials of acute cough,³⁰ croup,^{31 32 33} or bronchiolitis,^{34 35} providing data on 700 children. Five trials took place in North America^{30 31 32 34 35} and one in Australia.³³ We included six observational studies of 1063 children with cough^{3 22 36 37} or bronchiolitis,^{38 39} from the UK,^{3 36} Poland,²² Australia,³⁷ USA,³⁸ and Canada³⁹ (appendix 2).

Cough was present five to 14 days before study entry among children with acute cough, four days among children with bronchiolitis, and one day among children with croup. In most studies follow-up lasted two to three weeks or until symptoms resolved (range one to four weeks). Parents assessed outcomes in all trials and studies that used symptom scales or scores,^{30 31 32 34 39} symptom diaries,^{3 36 37 38} standardised questionnaire,²² or interview.³⁹ Studies had either a low or moderate risk of bias; those with moderate risk of bias generally lacked details of randomisation or sequence allocation^{30 33} (appendix 3).

Among the five studies that reported mean duration of illness, the time to resolution of cough ranged from one to 25 days^{3 22 30 36 37} (table 4). Based on the pooled results from five studies that reported proportions of children with symptoms, cough had resolved in 50% of children at 10 days, and 90% by 25 days (table 5, fig 5). Symptom duration was relatively shorter in two studies,^{22 30} of which one³⁰ was small (n=23) and enrolled children with symptoms lasting up to 14 days before recruitment, and the other²² recruited only infants.

The mean duration of croup was two and three days in the two studies that reported this information^{32 33} (table 4), and, based on the pooled data from two studies,^{31 32} symptoms of croup resolved in 50% of children at day one and 80% by two days (table 5, fig 6).

Finally, the mean time to resolution of cough for bronchiolitis ranged from eight³⁴ to 15³⁸ days (table 4, fig 7). Based on pooled data from four studies that reported proportions of children with symptoms,^{34 35 38 39} 50% of children improved by day 13 (table 5). Though we were unable to determine the time for 90% to improve, based on the data presented in figure 7 this was estimated at 21 days.

Common cold; undefined or non-specific respiratory tract infections

We included four trials involving 457 children^{40 41 42 43} and 15 observational studies involving 4870 children.^{7 22 37 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55} Included trials and studies were from the US,^{40 42 43 49 50 51 52 55} the UK,^{7 44 53} Finland,^{41 48} Canada,^{45 47} Poland,²² Australia,³⁷ Denmark,⁵⁴ and Germany⁴⁶ (appendix 2).

Follow-up ranged from two to 21 days in randomised controlled trials; in observational studies, follow-up generally lasted two to three weeks. The mean duration of symptoms before trial entry ranged from up to one day⁴³ to 8.7 (SD 5.1) days.⁴¹ Outcome assessment was performed by parents (using interviews or symptom diaries) in three trials^{40 41 43} and by both parents and children (symptom diary) in one.⁴² Overall, included studies had low to moderate risk of bias (appendix 3). Treatment and placebo lozenges were dissimilar in appearance in one randomised controlled trial, which raised the risk of bias from inadequate blinding.⁴² Several studies failed to report randomisation,⁴⁰ cohort selection,^{49 52} or inclusion criteria.^{7 44 46}

Among the four studies that reported mean duration, common cold symptoms lasted from seven to 15 days^{22 42 46 51} (fig 8, table 6). Based on the pooled data from five studies,^{22 40 42 49 51} by day 10 about 50% of children had improved. We did not have sufficient data to determine the time at which 90% improved, but based on visual inspection from figure 8 we estimated this as about 15 days. The largest study (n=1314) reported common cold symptoms lasting 1.8 weeks (SD 1.3) for children aged 7 or younger.⁴⁶

The mean duration of non-specific respiratory symptoms ranged from four to 16 days^{7 43 45 47 48 50 53 54 55} (table 6). Data on the proportion of children with symptoms was obtained from 11 studies^{7 37 41 43 44 45 47 48 50 53 54} and was highly variable across individual studies: 50% of children had improved by day seven to eight and 80% by day 14; we could not identify the time for 90% resolution, although a projected estimate would be around day 16 (table 7, fig 9). The studies that reported symptoms at day 14, however, showed an extremely wide range in the proportion still symptomatic, from 6%⁴⁴ to 60%.⁴⁸ The shorter length of symptom duration reported by both Butler and colleagues⁴⁴ and Jacobs and colleagues⁴⁷ could be explained by slightly longer average duration of symptoms before study entry. Taylor and colleagues reported duration of fever of 0.64 mean days (SD 1.16).⁴³

Table 8.

 Duration of common respiratory tract infections in children in current systematic review compared with current advice from UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Strengths and limitations

We believe this is the first systematic review of the duration of illness for common respiratory tract infections in children. Our strategy of including data from placebo arms of randomised controlled trials and from observational studies not only increases the available data but also provides more generalisable populations of children. This approach inevitably included children who might have been given over-the-counter treatments for symptoms and, in a few cases, antibiotics. We consider that it would be unrealistic to restrict our review to children with respiratory tract infections who were not given any symptomatic treatment. While symptomatic treatments might reduce symptom severity, however, they are unlikely to influence the overall duration of illness. It is possible that excluding studies of experimentally induced infection might have reduced eligible studies, though we do not consider that these types of usually single pathogen infections reflect the reality of clinical practice, where patients typically present with clinical syndromes rather than pathogen specific infections. In synthesising our results, we opted to present the number of days when 50% and 90% of children were reported to be asymptomatic. Although the data were not available for all the respiratory tract infections, we believe that this additional information avoids the ambiguity of terms such as “average duration” for parents and clinicians. Our estimates of duration also apply to children who are given (usually symptomatic) drugs rather than those given nothing at all, thereby providing more valuable information for how most children are managed in the community. As many trials and studies will have excluded children with severe symptoms, our findings might not be generalisable to such children or those in low or middle income countries where risks of complications are higher. While we included data from both randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies, we excluded retrospective studies, which could be subject to recall or recording bias.

As with any systematic review, our findings and complexity of synthesis are limited by the number and quality of included studies and the data these provided. The included studies were inevitably clinically heterogeneous in many aspects. The definition of the respiratory tract infection syndromes differed (or were poorly defined) in some studies, which could affect less discrete conditions (such as the common cold) more than others (such as croup); though this is a problem with much research in this area. Secondly, the duration of illness before study entry varied and was not consistently recorded, which prevented us from calculating what would have been potentially more useful for parents—namely, the duration of illness from initial onset rather than presentation. However, this mirrors the situation in primary care where patients present in exactly this way. Thirdly, the lack of sufficient data on age in included studies meant that we were not able to conduct age specific analyses. For some infections, however, the age ranges of children in included studies were relatively narrow (such as for bronchiolitis and croup) as would be predicted clinically, so subgroup analysis might not have contributed much to their interpretation. For other infections, such as sore throat or cough, the age ranges were much broader and subgroup analysis based on age would have been useful clinically. Fourthly, the methods used in individual studies to measure and report symptoms were highly variable, and the absence of consistent (daily) reporting for similar durations of follow-up for each respiratory tract infection meant that we were not able to pool data for all infections studied. When possible, we attempted to pool results by calculating mean proportions and 95% confidence intervals, but this does not take account of the lack of homogeneity between studies. We attempted to mitigate this by including the individual study data in all our figures to give some idea of the variability in symptom projection. Thus, pooled means need to be interpreted cautiously.

Implications for clinicians, policy, and research

Our review provides evidence that can be put to daily use by clinicians and parents caring for children with respiratory tract infections, as well as informing health policy and evidence based treatment guidelines. We provide data as far as possible for number of days for 50% and 90% of children’s symptoms to have improved; we anticipate that clinicians and parents could interpret these values into absolute terms as the “time for half of children” to get better, and “time for 9 out of 10 children” to get better (table 8). There are two key clinical decisions these data could inform. First is the parents’ decision to consult primary care, with its attendant implications for appropriate use of healthcare resources. Here, the data could inform algorithms used by healthcare providers (in writing, by telephone, or in person) to give parents information about expected length of time that symptoms might last, helping to reassure parents and trigger consultations more appropriately when the illness seems to deviate from course. Second is the clinician’s decision to prescribe antibiotics. Once again, these data could help reassure clinicians regarding the “normality” of some respiratory symptoms lasting for longer than previously appreciated and not necessarily requiring antimicrobial intervention.

We found limited data for the duration of illness for several respiratory tract infections (such as croup), which suggests that observational studies would be helpful to increase certainty of our estimates of duration of symptoms. What parents and clinicians still need are better ways of predicting which children will have an adverse or prolonged illness and need additional treatment (such as antibiotics) or more intensive monitoring (such as repeated visits). Results of ongoing research efforts such as the TARGET study (www.targetstudy.org.uk/) will help to provide these prediction tools. Future research should also focus the evaluation of new and existing interventions in children with the most severe illness trajectories.

Conclusions

Parents, clinicians, and policymakers should use these evidence based estimates of symptom duration when making decision regarding healthcare seeking and prescribing, and also when developing clinical guidelines for respiratory tract infections in children. Widespread dissemination of these data will improve parental and clinician awareness of how long symptoms last in children with respiratory tract infections.

Appendix 1: Search strategies

Appendix 2: Characteristics of included studies

Appendix 3: Quality assessment

• 1.Hay AD, Heron J, Ness A; ALSPAC study team. The prevalence of symptoms and consultations in pre-school children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC): a prospective cohort study. Fam Pract 2005;22:367-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 2.Fendrick A, Monto AS, Nightengale B, Sarnes M. The economic burden of non-influenza-related viral respiratory tract infection in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:487-94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 3.Hay AD, Wilson A, Fahey T, Peters TJ. The duration of acute cough in pre-school children presenting to primary care: a prospective cohort study. Fam Pract 2003;20:696-705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 4.Butler CC, Hood K, Kinnersley P, Robling M, Prout H, Houston H. Predicting the clinical course of suspected acute viral upper respiratory tract infection in children. Fam Pract 2005;22:92-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 5.Butler CC, Rollnick S, Kinnersley P, Tapper-Jones L, Houston H. Communicating about expected course and re-consultation for respiratory tract infections in children: an exploratory study. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54:536-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 6.Rosenfeld RM, Singer M, Jones S. Systematic review of antimicrobial therapy in patients with acute rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:S32-45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 7.Mitra A, Hannay D, Kapur A, Baxter G. The natural history of acute upper respiratory tract infections in children. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2011;12:329-34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 8.NICE Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team. Respiratory tract infections—antibiotic prescribing. Prescribing of antibiotics for self-limiting respiratory tract infections in adults and children in primary care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2008. [PubMed]
• 9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Get smart: respiratory illnesses. www.cdc.gov/getsmart/antibiotic-use/URI/index.html.
• 10.World Bank. Country and lending groups: high-income OECD members. Annual Report, 2011.
• 11.Laine MK, Tahtinen PA, Ruuskanen O, Huovinen P, Ruohola A. Symptoms or symptom-based scores cannot predict acute otitis media at otitis-prone age. Pediatrics 2010;125:e1154-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 12.Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
• 13.Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). www.casp-uk.net/.
• 14.Burke P, Bain J, Robinson D, Dunleavey J. Acute red ear in children: controlled trial of non-antibiotic treatment in general practice. BMJ 1991;303:558-62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 15.Damoiseaux RA, van Balen FA, Hoes AW, Verheij TJ, de Melker RA. Primary care based randomised, double blind trial of amoxicillin versus placebo for acute otitis media in children aged under 2 years. BMJ 2000;320:350-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 16.Hoberman A, Paradise JL, Rockette HE, Shaikh N, Wald ER, Kearney DH, et al. Treatment of acute otitis media in children under 2 years of age. N Engl J Med 2011;364:105-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 17.Le Saux N, Gaboury I, Baird M, Klassen TP, MacCormick J, Blanchard C, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial of amoxicillin for clinically diagnosed acute otitis media in children 6 months to 5 years of age. CMAJ 2005;172:335-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 18.Mygind N, Meistrup-Larsen KI, Thomsen J, Thomsen VF, Josefsson K, Sorensen H. Penicillin in acute otitis media: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1981;6:5-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 19.Neumark T, Molstad S, Rosen C, Persson LG, Torngren A, Brudin L, et al. Evaluation of phenoxymethylpenicillin treatment of acute otitis media in children aged 2-16. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007;25:166-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 20.Tahtinen PA, Laine MK, Huovinen P, Jalava J, Ruuskanen O, Ruohola A. A placebo-controlled trial of antimicrobial treatment for acute otitis media. N Engl J Med 2011;364:116-26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 21.Greenberg D, Bilenko N, Liss Z, Shagan T, Zamir O, Dagan R. The burden of acute otitis media on the patient and the family. Eur J Pediatr 2003;162:576-81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 22.Jedrychowski W, Galas A, Pac A, Flak E, Camman D, Rauh V, et al. Prenatal ambient air exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the occurrence of respiratory symptoms over the first year of life. Eur J Epidemiol 2005;20:775-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 23.Smith L, Ewings P, Smith C, Thompson M, Harnden A, Mant D. Ear discharge in children presenting with acute otitis media: observational study from UK general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60:101-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 24.Bulloch B, Kabani A, Tenenbein M. Oral dexamethasone for the treatment of pain in children with acute pharyngitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41:601-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 25.Chapple PA, Franklin LM, Paulett JD, Tuckman E, Woodall JT, Tomlinson AJ, et al. Treatment of acute sore throat in general practice; therapeutic trial, with observations on symptoms and bacteriology. BMJ 1956;i:705-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
• 26.Nelson JD. The effect of penicillin therapy on the symptoms and signs of streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis 1984;3:10-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 27.Olympia RP, Khine H, Avner JR. Effectiveness of oral dexamethasone in the treatment of moderate to severe pharyngitis in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:278-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 28.Ruperto N, Carozzino L, Jamone R, Freschi F, Picollo G, Zera M, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of paracetamol and ketoprofren lysine salt for pain control in children with pharyngotonsillitis cared by family pediatricians. Ital J Pediatr 2011;37:48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 29.Zwart S, Rovers MM, de Melker RA, Hoes AW. Penicillin for acute sore throat in children: randomised, double blind trial. BMJ 2003;327:1324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 30.Bernard DW, Goepp JG, Duggan AK, Serwint JR, Rowe PC. Is oral albuterol effective for acute cough in non-asthmatic children? Acta Paediatr 1999;88:465-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 31.Bjornson CL, Klassen TP, Williamson J, Brant R, Mitton C, Plint A, et al. A randomized trial of a single dose of oral dexamethasone for mild croup. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1306-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 32.Cruz MN, Stewart G, Rosenberg N. Use of dexamethasone in the outpatient management of acute laryngotracheitis. Pediatrics 1995;96:220-3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 33.Geelhoed GC, Turner J, Macdonald WB. Efficacy of a small single dose of oral dexamethasone for outpatient croup: a double blind placebo controlled clinical trial. BMJ 1996;313:140-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 34.Patel H, Gouin S, Platt RW. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral albuterol in infants with mild-to-moderate acute viral bronchiolitis. J Pediatr 2003;142:509-14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 35.Plint AC, Johnson DW, Patel H, Wiebe N, Correll R, Brant R, et al. Epinephrine and dexamethasone in children with bronchiolitis. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2079-89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 36.Hay AD, Gorst C, Montgomery A, Peters TJ, Fahey T. Validation of a clinical rule to predict complications of acute cough in preschool children: a prospective study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:530-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 37.Kusel MM, de Klerk N, Holt PG, Landau LI, Sly PD. Occurrence and management of acute respiratory illnesses in early childhood. J Paediatr Child Health 2007;43:139-46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 38.Petruzella FD, Gorelick MH. Duration of illness in infants with bronchiolitis evaluated in the emergency department. Pediatrics 2010;126:285-90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 39.Plint AC, Johnson DW, Wiebe N, Bulloch B, Pusic M, Joubert G, et al. Practice variation among pediatric emergency departments in the treatment of bronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:353-60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 40.Hutton N, Wilson MH, Mellits ED, Baumgardner R, Wissow LS, Bonuccelli C, et al. Effectiveness of an antihistamine-decongestant combination for young children with the common cold: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Pediatr 1991;118:125-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 41.Kristo A, Uhari M, Luotonen J, Ilkko E, Koivunen P, Alho OP. Cefuroxime axetil versus placebo for children with acute respiratory infection and imaging evidence of sinusitis: a randomized, controlled trial. Acta Paediatr 2005;94:1208-13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 42.Macknin ML, Piedmonte M, Calendine C, Janosky J, Wald E. Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold in children: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279:1962-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 43.Taylor JA, Weber W, Standish L, Quinn H, Goesling J, McGann M, et al. Efficacy and safety of echinacea in treating upper respiratory tract infections in children: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290:2824-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 44.Butler CC, Kinnersley P, Hood K, Robling M, Prout H, Rollnick S, et al. Clinical course of acute infection of the upper respiratory tract in children: cohort study. BMJ 2003;327:1088-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 45.Carabin H, Gyorkos TW, Soto JC, Joseph L, Collet JP. Comparison between two common methods for reporting cold and diarrhoea symptoms of children in daycare centre research. Child Care Health Dev 2000;26:471-85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 46.Gruber C, Keil T, Kulig M, Roll S, Wahn U, Wahn V. History of respiratory infections in the first 12 yr among children from a birth cohort. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2008;19:505-12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 47.Jacobs B, Young NL, Dick PT, Ipp MM, Dutkowski R, Davies HD, et al. Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS): development of a valid measure for childhood respiratory infections. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:793-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 48.Kristo A, Uhari M, Kontiokari T, Glumoff V, Kaijalainen T, Leinonen M, et al. Nasal middle meatal specimen bacteriology as a predictor of the course of acute respiratory infection in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006;25:108-12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 49.Pappas DE, Hendley JO, Hayden FG, Winther B. Symptom profile of common colds in school-aged children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2008;27:8-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 50.Samet JM, Cushing AH, Lambert WE, Hunt WC, McLaren LC, Young SA, et al. Comparability of parent reports of respiratory illnesses with clinical diagnoses in infants. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;148:441-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 51.Steinweg KK. Natural history and prognostic significance of purulent rhinitis. J Fam Pract 1983;17:61-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 52.Taylor JA, Weber WJ, Martin ET, McCarty RL, Englund JA. Development of a symptom score for clinical studies to identify children with a documented viral upper respiratory tract infection. Pediatr Res 2010;68:252-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 53.Turner Cobb JM, Steptoe A. Psychosocial influences on upper respiratory infectious illness in children. J Psychosom Res 1998;45:319-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 54.Von Linstow ML, Holst KK, Larsen K, Koch A, Andersen PK, Hogh B. Acute respiratory symptoms and general illness during the first year of life: a population-based birth cohort study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2008;43:584-93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 55.Wald ER, Guerra N, Byers C. Upper respiratory tract infections in young children: duration of and frequency of complications. Pediatrics 1991;87:129-33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Supplementary Materials