MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513865743 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001290

Interventions for educating children who have attended the emergency room for asthma

2001· review· en· W1513865743 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle M. Haby, Elizabeth Waters, Colin Robertson, Peter G. Gibson, Francine M. Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaRelative riskEmergency departmentPsychological interventionCINAHLConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMeta-analysisClinical trialEmergency medicinePediatricsFamily medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common reasons for paediatric admissions to hospital, with substantial cost to the community. There is some evidence to suggest that many hospital admissions could be prevented with effective education about asthma and its management. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the literature in order to identify whether asthma education leads to improved health outcomes in children who have attended the emergency department for asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, including Medline, Embase, and Cinahl databases, and reference lists of trials and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of asthma education for children who had attended the emergency department for asthma, with or without hospitalisation, within the previous 12 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 1407 patients were included, in all the education was provided by nurses or researchers. Compared to control (usual care or lower intensity education) education did not reduce subsequent emergency department (ED) visits [4 trials; relative risk (RR)= 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 2.08], hospital admissions [5 trials; RR=0.74, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.46] and unscheduled doctor visits [5 trials; RR= 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12). Each analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (P<0.01). Subgroup analyses by the overall difference in scale of intervention between treatment and control groups (comprehensive programme versus information only) or the timing of the intervention/recruitment (early versus delayed) gave similar results to the main analysis and still revealed significant heterogeneity between trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the published trials, there is no firm evidence to support the use of asthma education for children who have attended the emergency department for asthma as a means of reducing subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions or unscheduled doctor visits. Some trials appeared to show clear evidence of benefit, but reasons for differences between these and the negative studies is not clear. More research is required

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations77
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207