MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2008866103 · doi:10.1002/ebch.245

<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for Children with Asthma: An Overview of Reviews

2008· article· en· W2008866103 on OpenAlexaff
Candice Bjornson, Kelly Russell, Amy C. Plint, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineExacerbationLeukotriene receptorCochrane LibraryLeukotrieneInhalerSystematic reviewPediatricsInternal medicineMeta-analysisPhysical therapyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Asthma is a common childhood disease characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways. One treatment option is the class of medications known as the leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs). The use of LTRA in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) may improve asthma control by reducing mucus secretion, inflammation and bronchoconstriction via this alternate pathway. Objectives To synthesise the evidence currently in The Cochrane Library Database Of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) related to the question, ‘In children with symptomatic but stable asthma, does treatment with a LTRA as a primary or add‐on therapy to ICS improve objective measures of lung function and asthma symptom control, reduce exacerbations, and improve quality of life compared to standard care?’ Methods CDSR was searched using the term ‘asthma’ in the title for all systematic reviews examining anti‐leukotriene agents vs any other pharmacological agent for the treatment of asthma. Data were extracted and entered into tables; data were synthesised using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Results Three reviews were identified; however, only two reviews contained data in children. There was no significant difference in change in FEV1, number of missed school days, or the proportion of children requiring oral corticosteroid treatment, or proportion of children who experienced an asthma exacerbation requiring hospital admission among those randomised to LTRA vs ICS. The addition of LTRA treatment to ICS resulted in no significant difference in the change in FEV1 or morning PEFR, use of β2‐agonist rescue medication, proportion of children admitted to the hospital due to an asthma exacerbation, or quality of life. Authors' Conclusions Until further evidence is available for children, LTRAs should not be substituted for ICS as monotherapy and ICS should remain the first line therapy for children with asthma. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that anti‐leukotriene agents added to ICS therapy improves asthma control, steroid‐sparing effect, or improved quality of life. Future research should address the gaps in children, including those as young as 2 years of age. Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & 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 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)0.032
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0220.028
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→