MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heliox for non-intubated acute asthma patients

2006· review· en· W1788519105 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo J. Rodrigo, Charles V. Pollack, Carlos Rodrigo, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelioxMedicineAsthmaJadad scalePlaceboClinical trialIntensive care medicinePulmonary function testingEmergency departmentRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineCochrane LibraryAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Helium and oxygen mixtures (heliox), have been used sporadically in respiratory medicine for decades. Their use in acute respiratory emergencies such as asthma has been the subject of considerable debate. Despite the lapse of more than 60 years since it was first proposed, the role of heliox in treating patients with severe acute asthma remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of the addition of heliox to standard medical care on the course of acute asthma, as measured by pulmonary function testing and clinical endpoints. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. In addition, we contacted primary authors and experts and searched reference lists of articles. Searches are current to August 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: 1) randomised, single or double blind, controlled trials; 2) children or adults with a clinical diagnosis of acute asthma seen in emergency departments or equivalent acute care settings; and 3) compared treatment with inhaled heliox to placebo (oxygen or air). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and quality assessment; disagreement was resolved by a third review author and consensus. MAIN RESULTS: This review has been updated in 2006 to include four new trials giving atotal of ten trials involving 544 acute asthma patients. Seven studies involved adults and three studies dealt solely with children. Three were assessed as high quality (Jadad score > 3). Pulmonary function tests were recorded during heliox administration (15 to 60 min). Pooling of the eight trials contributing data to this review showed no significant group differences (standardised mean differences -0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to 0.01). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies. Heliox use did improve pulmonary function only in the subgroup of patients with the most severe baseline pulmonary function impairment; however, this conclusion is based on a small number of studies. There were no significant differences between groups when adults versus children, and high versus low heliox dose studies were compared. Finally, at the end of treatment, participants treated with heliox showed no significant different risk of admission to hospital (RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.66 to 1.08, P = 0.17, I(2) = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence does not provide support for the administration of helium-oxygen mixtures to all ED patients with acute asthma. At this time, heliox treatment does not have a role to play in the initial treatment of patients with acute asthma. Nevertheless, new evidence suggests certain beneficial effects in patients with more severe obstruction. Since these conclusions are based upon between-group comparisons and small studies, they should be interpreted with caution.

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)0.003
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 score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations172
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207