Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Written Action Plans in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the independent effect of a written action plan vs no plan and to compare different plans to identify characteristics of effective plans in children with asthma. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Clinical Trials Register until March 2006, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials that evaluated asthma action plans in the pediatric population. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials with participants aged 0 to 17 years diagnosed with asthma. Of 428 citations, 1 trial compared a peak flow-based plan with none and 4 parallel-group trials compared symptom-based plans with peak flow-based plans. Intervention Provision of a written action plan. Control groups received no action plan or another type of plan. All co-interventions (both medical and educational) were similar in both groups. Main Outcome Measure The number of children with at least 1 acute care asthma visit. RESULTS: Written action plan use significantly reduced acute care visits per child as compared with control subjects. Children using plans also missed less school, had less nocturnal awakening, and had improved symptom scores. As compared with peak flow-based plans, symptom-based plans significantly reduced the risk of a patient requiring an acute care visit. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are limited data to firmly conclude that provision of an action plan is superior to none, there is clear evidence suggesting that symptom-based plans are superior to peak flow-based plans in children and adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".