MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1218690527 · doi:10.1155/2005/837645

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors Associated with Near‐Fatal and Fatal Asthma

2005· review· en· W1218690527 on OpenAlexaff
Gonzalo G. Alvarez, Michael Schulzer, D Jung, J. Mark FitzGerald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaExacerbationMEDLINESystematic reviewRelative riskCOPDInternal medicineAsthma exacerbationsIntensive care unitPediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Asthma mortality and morbidity continue to be a serious global problem. Systematic reviews provide an opportunity to review risk factors in detail. OBJECTIVE: To review all of the literature for risk factors associated with near-fatal asthma (NFA) and fatal asthma (FA). METHODS: A literature search from 1960 to January 2004 in MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Studies were included based on the following criteria: NFA was defined as an asthma exacerbation resulting in respiratory arrest requiring mechanical ventilation or a partial pressure of CO2 of at least 45 mmHg or asthma resulting in death (FA); the study reported the number of cases (NFA and/or FA) and asthmatic controls; there was explicit reporting of risk factors; cases that were adult and pediatric in nature; and all study types. Studies that included patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded. RESULTS: Four hundred and three articles were identified, of which 27 met the inclusion criteria. Increased use of medications such as beta-agonists via metered dose inhalers (OR=1.67, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.84, P=0.057) and nebulizers (OR=2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.93, P=0.0002), oral steroids (OR=2.71, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.51, P=0.006) and oral theophylline (OR=2.02, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.98, P=0.04) and a history of hospital (OR=2.62, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.58, P=0.04) and/or intensive care unit (OR=5.14, 95% CI 1.91 to 13.86, P=0.001) admissions and mechanical ventilation (OR=6.69, 95% CI 2.80 to 15.97, P=0.0001) due to asthma were predictors of NFA and FA. Prior emergency department assessment did not confer a greater risk of NFA and FA (OR=1.13, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.92, P=0.810). The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) measured in a dose-independent fashion (did the patient take ICS previously; yes or no) inferred equivocal risk of NFA and FA (OR=1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.05, P=0.25). However, two studies measured the use of ICS in a dose-dependent fashion (ie, measured the number of prescriptions filled within the previous six to 12 months). Both studies showed a trend toward a protective effect against FA. One study showed that the premature cessation of ICS can hasten death. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, risk factors of NFA and FA have been more accurately defined. Clinicians should identify patients with these characteristics to reduce their risk of NFA and FA. Further research should focus on quantifying the impact of risk factors on asthma deaths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0180.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations142
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207