MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anticholinergic drugs for wheeze in children under the age of two years

2005· review· en· W1931538042 on OpenAlexaff
Mark L. Everard, Anna Bara, Matthew Kurian, Tracy N'Diaye, Francine M. Ducharme, Varaidzo Mayowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheezeMedicineIpratropium bromidePediatricsBronchiolitisPlaceboBronchodilatorAsthmaClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRespiratory systemAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Wheeze in infancy and early childhood is common and appears to be increasing though the magnitude of any increase is unclear. Most wheezing episodes in infancy are precipitated by respiratory viral infections. Treatment of very young children with wheeze remains controversial. Anti-cholinergics are often prescribed but practice varies widely and the efficacy of this form of therapy remains the subject for debate. OBJECTIVES: Wheeze in infancy and early childhood is common and appears to be increasing. Most wheezing episodes in infancy are a result of viral infection. Bronchodilator medications such as beta2-agonists and anti-cholinergic agents are often used to relieve symptoms, but patterns of use vary. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of anti-cholinergic therapy in the treatment of wheezing infants. This is a second update of this review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and the reference lists of articles. We contacted researchers in the field and industry sources. Searches were current as of June 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials that compared anti-cholinergic therapy with placebo or beta2-agonists in wheezing children under two years of age. Children with acute bronchiolitis and chronic lung disease were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility for inclusion and quality of trials were assessed independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials involving 321 infants in three different settings were included. Compared with beta2-agonist alone, the combination of ipratropium bromide and beta2-agonist was associated with a reduced need for additional treatment, but no difference was seen in treatment response, respiratory rate or oxygen saturation improvement in the emergency department. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between ipratropium bromide and placebo; or between ipratropium bromide and beta2-agonist combined compared with beta2-agonist alone. However, combined ipratropium bromide and beta2-agonist compared to placebo showed significantly improved clinical scores at 24 hours. Parents preferred ipratropium bromide over nebulised water or placebo for relief of their children's symptoms at home. A further updated search conducted in June 2004 did not yield any new studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to support the uncritical use of anti-cholinergic therapy for wheezing infants, although parents using it at home were able to identify benefits.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations138
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207