MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4233551106 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004878

Glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants and young children

2004· reference-entry· en· W4233551106 sur OpenAlexaff
Hema Patel, R D Platt, EEL Wang

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereference-entry
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBronchiolitisCochrane LibraryData extractionRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPediatricsAcute BronchiolitisIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRespiratory system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticoids have been widely prescribed for use in infants and young children with acute viral bronchiolitis but the actual benefit of this intervention requires clarification. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of systemic glucocorticoids for the treatment of infants and young children with acute viral bronchiolitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Multiple strategies were incorporated to maximize identification of suitable studies. The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2003); Current Contents (1998 to 2000); EMBASE (January 1990 to September 2003); and Sci Search. Handsearches through cited references and contacts with experts were also used. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for inclusion. Studies were included if participants were diagnosed with acute viral bronchiolitis and treated with systemic (oral, intramuscular or intravenous) corticosteroids. Three reviewers independently selected potentially relevant articles. Four reviewers evaluated these studies, determined eligibility and assessed the methodological quality of each RCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome of interest was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were: respiratory rate, haemoglobin oxygen saturation, and hospital admission and revisit rates. Data were extracted independently by the four reviewers and the results compiled and compared. Two reviewers reassessed studies to clarify points of discrepancy in the data extraction and database entry processes. Missing data were requested from the authors or calculated from other data presented in the study report. MAIN RESULTS: There was complete agreement on the inclusion of 13 trials and the exclusion of five studies. Two main study recruitment groups were identified: a) infants and young children within the first 48 hours of hospitalisation (10 trials), and b) outpatient infants and young children who were randomised from the emergency department and who may nor may not have required hospital admission (three trials).A total of 1,198 children aged 0 to 30 months were treated with the equivalent of 0.5 to 10 mg/kg of systemic prednisone for two to seven days. Outcomes of interest were not measured in each RCT. In the pooled analysis of seven trials, there was a decrease in LOS in treated children of 0.38 days (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to 0.05), indicating no significant difference between treatment groups. In the pooled analysis of eight trials, the day three clinical score measured: a standard mean difference (SMD) of -0.20 (95% CI -0.73 to 0.32), indicating no difference between treatment groups. Subgroup analyses for base LOS and clinical score outcomes were performed on infants who were a) less than 12 months of age, b) all respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive, c) treated with less than 6 mg/kg of prednisone equivalent throughout the illness and d) first-time wheezers. These were limited by the small number of studies in each subgroup. Hospital admission rates were examined in three trials and no difference was seen between treatment groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% CI 0.23 to 4.87). Readmission rates were reported in six studies; with no significant differences between treatment groups. Hospital revisit rates were reported in three studies, with a significant difference between treatment groups reported in one study only. The respiratory rate and haemoglobin oxygen saturation were reported descriptively in six RCTs; no differences were found between groups. Co-interventions (oxygen, supportive fluids and bronchodilators) were used similarly between treatment groups in all RCTs. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: No benefits were found in either LOS or clinical score in infants and young children treated with systemic glucocorticoids as compared to placebo. There were no differences in these outcomes between treatment groups; either in the pooled groups; either in the pooled analysis or in any of the sub analyses. Among the three studies evaluating hospital admission rates following the initial hospital visit there was no difference between treatment groups. There were no differences found in respiratory rate, haemoglobin oxygen saturation, hospital revisit or readmission rates. Subgroup analyses were significantly limited by the low number of studies in each comparison. Marked study heterogeneity and occasionally conflicting direction of benefit between trials suggests that these results should be interpreted with caution. Specific data on the harm of corticosteroid therapy in this patient population are lacking. Available evidence suggests that corticosteroid therapy is not of benefit in this patient group.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,053
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0100,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations123
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207