MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glucocorticoids for croup

2011· review· en· W1949163494 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Russell, Yuanyuan Liang, Kathleen O'Gorman, David W. Johnson, Terry P. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCroupMedicineConfidence intervalMEDLINERandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPediatricsClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the initial publication of this systematic review in 1997, several randomized trials examining the benefit of glucocorticoids have been published. The objective of this review is to provide evidence to guide clinicians in their treatment of patients with croup by determining the effectiveness of glucocorticoids and to identify areas requiring future research. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of glucocorticoids for children with croup. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to July week 2, 2010) and EMBASE.com (1974 to July 2010). We also contacted authors of identified croup trials published in the last 10 years to inquire about additional published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examine children with croup and objectively measure the effectiveness of glucocorticoids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors identified studies for potential relevance based on the review of the title and abstract (when available). Two review authors independently reviewed studies for relevance using a priori inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality. Differences were resolved by consensus. One review author extracted data using a structured form and another review author checked the results for accuracy. We performed standard statistical analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included (n = 4299). Glucocorticoids were associated with an improved Westley score (maximum 17 points) at six hours with a mean difference of -1.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.8) and at 12 hours -1.9 (95% CI -2.4 to -1.3); at 24 hours this improvement was no longer significant (-1.3, 95% CI -2.7 to 0.2). Fewer return visits and/or (re)admissions occurred in participants treated with glucocorticoids (risk ratio (RR) 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7). Length of time spent in accident and emergency or hospital (mean difference 12 hours, five to 19 hours) was significantly decreased for participants treated with glucocorticoids. Use of epinephrine decreased for children treated with a glucocorticoid (risk difference 10%; 95% CI 1 to 20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone and budesonide are effective in relieving the symptoms of croup as early as six hours after treatment. Fewer return visits and/or (re)admissions are required and the length of time spent in hospital is decreased. Research is required to examine the most beneficial method for disseminating croup practice guidelines and to increase the uptake of evidence.

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)0.027
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations234
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207