MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970561029 · doi:10.1002/ebch.585

<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and the Treatment of Chronic Cough in Children: An Overview of Reviews

2010· article· en· W1970561029 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Russell, Anne B. Chang, Michelle Foisy, Denise Thomson, Katrina Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsCochraneUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic coughMedicineCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewEtiologyAdverse effectAsthmaIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPediatricsMeta-analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Chronic cough is a universal condition of childhood that affects approximately one in ten children. Chronic cough can be either specific (‘wet’ cough or other symptoms concurrently present) or nonspecific (‘dry’ cough in the absence of other symptoms). Compared to adults, specific and non‐specific chronic cough in children differs in terms of both aetiology and treatment, and the methods used to treat chronic cough in adults may actually be harmful for children. Objective This overview of reviews synthesizes the evidence currently in the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) in order to answer the following question: in the treatment of childhood specific and non‐specific chronic cough, which pharmacologic or non‐pharmacologic treatments improve cough symptoms and decrease adverse events? Methods The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using the terms ‘specific cough’, ‘non‐specific cough’, ‘moist cough’ and ‘chronic cough’ in the record title for all systematic reviews examining pharmacologic or non‐pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of chronic cough in children. Data were extracted, complied into tables, and synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Results Six reviews (five on non‐specific cough and one on specific cough) were indentified for inclusion. For non‐specific cough, one review found that very high‐dose inhaled corticosteroids were effective in reducing non‐specific cough (RR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.10, 3.77), but this treatment was not advocated. To date, there is no evidence that anti‐histamines, β 2 agonists, gastro‐oesophageal reflux treatments or leukotriene receptor antagonists are efficacious for the treatment of non‐specific chronic cough. For specific cough related to isolated wet cough, there was significant clinical improvement when children were treated with antibiotics (RR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.65, 3.53). Limited data were available for adverse events associated with any of the treatment options. Authors' Conclusions The paucity of RCT evidence in the management of children with chronic cough is striking. Five systematic reviews on interventions for non‐specific cough do not support an empirical treatment approach. One systematic review on interventions for specific cough found some support for the use of antibiotics. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207