MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000028878 · doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0846yyy

The Use of Magnesium Sulfate in Acute Asthma: Rapid Uptake of Evidence in North American Emergency Departments

2007· article· en· W2000028878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy Andrews, James R. Banks

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaObservational studyEmergency departmentBronchodilatorAsthma exacerbationsEmergency medicineExacerbationPopulationMedical prescriptionPediatricsAcute severe asthmaInternal medicineRespiratory disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rowe BH, Camargo CA Jr; Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC) Investigators. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117:53–58 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) has been shown to be an effective acute bronchodilator in both children and adults with severe acute asthma, yet little is known about its actual clinical use. STUDY POPULATION. Between 1997 and 2001, ∼10 000 patients were enrolled onto observational asthma studies in the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration, which is part of the Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet), a collaboration of 140 mostly academic medical institution emergency departments (EDs) in the United States and Canada. In 2001, a survey was conducted of all site investigators regarding MgSO4 use in this patient group. METHODS. At the time of the study, physicians were unaware of the study and did not use a particular protocol at each site. Chart review was conducted on patients 2 to 54 years of age who were currently having an asthma exacerbation. Patients were managed at the discretion of the treating physician, and cases in which intravenous MgSO4 was used were identified. Pulmonary-function studies, usually peak expiratory flows (PEFs), were recorded as early during the ED evaluation as possible but were not attempted or recorded in all cases. The subsequent survey consisted of 2 parts: a preliminary survey of the use of intravenous MgSO4 in the hospital and a second part regarding interest in research in this area. RESULTS. From 10 169 ED visits, 9745 (96%) charts documented information regarding administration of MgSO4 for the patients while in the ED. Of these, 240 (2.5%) patients received this drug. The use was 10 times higher among patients who were subsequently admitted versus nonadmitted patients. No specific data as to the number of children so treated were presented. Logistic regression identified several factors associated with MgSO4 use: increasing age, female gender, past history of intubation, duration of symptoms <24 hours, higher initial respiratory rate, low PEF or missing PEF data, and greater use of β agonists and systemic corticosteroids in the ED. In response to the survey, site leaders listed severity and failure to respond to initial β agonists as factors that would prompt MgSO4 use. They disagreed with the use of MgSO4 in all asthmatic patients in the ED. Site leaders also described far less use of this agent both prehospital and in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS. Most ED physicians accept the efficacy of MgSO4 in acute asthma, but its use remains relatively uncommon. In both practice and theory, these physicians seem to restrict its use to patients with severe acute asthma. Patterns of use will likely continue to evolve as knowledge of the efficacy and safety of MgSO4 in acute asthma management disseminates. REVIEWER COMMENTS. Because the use of MgSO4 was so much higher in admitted patients, does this not beg the question as to whether it should be used even more aggressively in the ED and in the subsequently hospitalized child with status asthmaticus? Also, considering the apparent safety of MgSO4 in either the intravenous or nebulized form, should this drug be part of the outpatient treatment protocol for the child with relatively severe bronchospasm who first presents in the office of the pediatrician or allergist?

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207