MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corticosteroids for preventing relapse following acute exacerbations of asthma

2007· review· en· W1742527762 on OpenAlexaff
Brian H. Rowe, Carol Spooner, Francine M. Ducharme, Jennifer A. Bretzlaff, Gary W. Bota

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSudbury Regional HospitalMontreal Children's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAsthmaPlaceboRandomized controlled trialExacerbationRelative riskConfidence intervalBronchospasmPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute asthma is responsible for many emergency department (ED) visits annually. Between 12 to 16% will relapse to require additional interventions within two weeks of ED discharge. Treatment of acute asthma is based on rapid reversal of bronchospasm and reducing airway inflammation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefit of corticosteroids (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous) for the treatment of asthmatic patients discharged from an acute care setting (i.e. usually the emergency department) after assessment and treatment of an acute asthmatic exacerbation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles. In addition, authors of all included studies were contacted to locate unpublished studies. The most recent search was run in October 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing two types of corticosteroids (oral, intra-muscular, or inhaled) with placebo for outpatient treatment of asthmatic exacerbations in adults or children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 374 people were included. One study used intramuscular corticosteroids, five studies used oral corticosteroids. The review was split into two reviews and although the latest search yielded no additional placebo controlled trials an additional IM study was included. Significantly fewer patients in the corticosteroid group relapsed to receive additional care in the first week (Relative risk (RR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 0.74). This favourable effect was maintained over the first 21 days (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.89) and there were fewer subsequent hospitalizations (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95). Patients receiving corticosteroids had less need for beta(2)-agonists (mean difference (MD) -3.3 activations/day; 95% CI -5.6 to -1.0). Changes in pulmonary function tests (SMD 0.045; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.56) and side effects (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.44) in the first 7 to 10 days, while rarely reported, showed no significant differences between the treatment groups. Statistically significant heterogeneity was identified for the side effect results; all other outcomes were homogeneous. From these results, as few as ten patients need to be treated to prevent relapse to additional care after an exacerbation of asthma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A short course of corticosteroids following assessment for an asthma exacerbation significantly reduces the number of relapses to additional care, hospitalizations and use of short-acting beta(2)-agonist without an apparent increase in side effects. Intramuscular and oral corticosteroids are both effective.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations351
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207