Table 3.

Summary of the results of included studies.

Reference	Diagnosis	Treatment		Outcomes assessed (selection)*	Results		Statistics**
		Intervention group	Control group		Intervention group	Control group
Ivy leaf extract versus placebo
Kemmerich et al. 2006	Acute bronchitis	Ivy + Thyme (syrup)	Placebo	Change in frequency of coughing fits (relative reduction), time to cessation of fits, Bronchitis severity score (BSS), Response to treatment (AD)	Frequency of coughing fits ↓ 77.6%,	Frequency of coughing fits ↓ 55.9%,	P < .0001
					Time to a 50% reduction in fits 6d,	Time to a 50% reduction in fits 8d,	P < .0001
					BSS ↓ (8.2 →1.6),	BSS ↓ (8.3 →3.3),	P < .0001
					Response rate 96.2%	Response rate 74.7%	P < .0001
Ivy leaf extract versus conventional expectorant therapy
Bolbot et al. 2004	Acute bronchitis	Ivy (syrup)	Acetylcysteine	FVC, FEV1, PEF, Change in symptoms cough frequency, sputum, shortness of breath, respiratory pain, Global assessment of efficacy (based on symptoms) (AD)	FVC ↑	FVC ↑	s
					FEV1 ↑	FEV1 ↑	s
					PEF ↑	PEF ↑	s
					Global efficacy rated as very good in 40.0%	Global efficacy rated as very good in 12.5%	s
Comparison of different formulations of ivy
Unkauf and Friedrich 2000	Acute bronchitis	Ivy (syrup)	Ivy (syrup)	Severity of bronchitis assessed on visual analogue scale (AD), Frequency and quality of cough	Severity ↓ (on scale ↓ 67.3 mm)	Severity ↓ (on scale ↓ 64.2 mm)	P = .0031 for equivalence
					After treatment 26.9% without bronchitis	After treatment 36.5% without bronchitis	ns
Observational studies (OSs)
Büechi and Kähler 2003	Acute bronchitis, common cold	Ivy (pastilles)	n.a.	Change in symptoms urge to cough and sputum quantity on a scale (1–4) (AD), Global assessment of efficacy (AD, AP)	Urge to cough ↓ (2.7 → 1.3)	n.a.	no statistics
					Sputum quantity ↓ (1.5 →1.1)
					Efficacy rated as very good or good in 78% (AD) and 77% (AP)
Büechi et al. 2005	Acute and chronic bronchitis, common cold	Ivy + Thyme (syrup)	n.a.	Change in symptoms urge to cough, sputum quantity, sputum consistency, ease of expectoration on a scale (1–4), Global assessment of efficacy (AD, AP)	Change of median symptom score for urge to cough, sputum consistency and ease of expectoration 3 → 1, for sputum quantity 2 → 1, Efficacy rated as very good or good in 86% (AD) and 90% (AP)	n.a.	no statistics
Fazio et al. 2009	Acute and chronic bronchitis, cough	Ivy (syrup)	n.a.	Change in symptoms cough, expectoration, shortness of breath, respiratory pain (AD)	Improvement or cure for cough in 93.4%, expectoration 92.9%, shortness of breath 91.2%, pain 90.8%	n.a.	no statistics
Hecker 1999	Bronchitis	Ivy (syrup)	n.a.	Change in symptoms cough, expectoration, shortness of breath, respiratory pain on a scale (1–4) (AD), Global assessment of efficacy (AD)	Improvement or cure for cough in 91.3%, expectoration 87.5%, shortness of breath 57.7%, pain 60.9%, Efficacy rated as very good or good in 86%	n.a.	no statistics
Leskow 1985	Acute and chronic bronchitis, chesty cough, pertussis	Ivy (drops)	n.a.	Change in symptoms cough, expectoration, shortness of breath (AD)	Improvement or cure for cough in 96.4%, expectoration 100%, shortness of breath 100%	n.a.	no statistics
Marzian 2007	Acute bronchitis	Ivy+Thyme (syrup)	n.a.	Change in frequency of coughing fits, Bronchitis severity score (BSS),Improvement yes/no (AD)	Coughing fits ↓ (25.1/d → 4.7/d), BSS ↓ (8.9 → 1.2), Improvement or cure in 94%	n.a.	no statistics
Santoro Júnior 2005	Bronchitis	Ivy (syrup)	n.a.	Change in symptoms cough and shortness of breath, Auscultation results (AD)	Cough ↓ (98.8% → 5.4% of patients), shortness of breath ↓ Auscultation: rales ↓	n.a.	s

n.a. = not applicable, ns = not statistically significant, s = statistically significant, FVC = forced vital capacity, PEF = peak expiratory flow, FEV1 = forced expiratory volume in one second, AD = assessment by doctor, AP = assessment by patient, *only outcome parameters reported in a manner allowing comparison between groups are listed (RCT/CCT), for OS: selected relevant outcomes. **if reported: P-value for intervention compared to control. For OS: P-value for baseline compared to after treatment.