MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W117285554 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002314

Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children

2002· review· en· W117285554 on OpenAlexaff
FM Ducharme, GC Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaExacerbationAdverse effectRelative riskConfidence intervalLeukotrieneRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineInhaled corticosteroidsPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anti-leukotrienes agents are currently being studied as alternative first line agents to inhaled corticosteroids in mild to moderate chronic asthma. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of anti-leukotriene agents with inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) and to determine the dose-equivalence of anti-leukotrienes to daily dose of ICS. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline (1966 to Jan 2002), Embase (1980 to Jan 2002), and Cinahl (1982 to Jan 2002) were searched and reference lists of review articles and trials. We contacted colleagues and international headquarters of anti-leukotrienes producers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared leukotriene antagonists with inhaled corticosteroids during a minimal 30-day intervention period in asthmatic patients aged 2 years and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers performed assessments of methodological quality and data extraction independently and blindly. The primary outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included lung function, indices of chronic asthma control, adverse effects and withdrawal rates. MAIN RESULTS: 14 trials met the inclusion criteria; 10 were of high methodological quality; 8 are published in full-text. All were in mild-to-moderate chronic asthma, Two included children or adolescents. Trial duration was 4 - 37 weeks. In most trials, daily dose of ICS was 400 mcg of beclomethasone-equivalent. Patients treated with anti-leukotrienes were 60% more likely to suffer an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids [12 trials; Relative Risk 1.61; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.15, 2.25]. Significant differences favouring ICS were noted in most secondary outcomes, eg improvement in FEV1 [7 trials; Weighted Mean Difference 120 ml; 95% CI: 80, 170 ml ]; symptom scores [5 trials: Standardized Mean Difference 0.3; 95% CI 0.2, 0.4]. Other significant benefits of ICS were seen for nocturnal awakenings, rescue medication use, and quality of life. Risk of side effects was not different between groups, but anti-leukotriene therapy was associated with 30% increased risk of "withdrawals for any cause" or "withdrawals due to poor asthma control". REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For most asthma outcomes, ICS at 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone-equivalent are more effective than anti-leukotriene agents given in the usual licensed doses. The exact dose-equivalence of anti-leukotriene agents in mcg of ICS remains to be determined.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207