<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and Long‐Acting Beta‐agonist Treatment for Childhood Asthma: An Overview of Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Asthma is characterized by chronic airway inflammation and affects many children. One treatment option used to control asthma symptoms is the class of medications known as the long acting β 2 ‐agonists (LABA) and they are often used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The use of LABA in children has been widely debated in the literature. Objectives To synthesize the evidence currently in the Cochrane Library of systematic reviews related to the question: ‘In children with symptomatic asthma, does treatment with a LABA 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?’. Methods The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched using the term ‘asthma’ in the title for all systematic reviews examining LABA vs any other pharmacological agent for the treatment of asthma. Data were extracted and entered into tables; syntheses occurred using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Results Seven reviews were identified; however, only four reviews contained data for children. There was no significant difference in the asthma exacerbations among those treated with LABA or any other treatment. For those treated with LABA with no/varied ICS vs placebo with no/varied ICS, there was a significant improvement in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV 1 ) and a significant number of children had a ≥ 15% increase in FEV 1 . There was also a significant reduction in the change in whole day rescue medication, fewer asthma related night‐time wakenings, and lower symptom scores for LABA with no/varied ICS. Change in FEV 1 (Litres (L) or percent predicted) and improvement in morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF) favoured LABA and ICS vs fixed dose ICS and placebo. There was a significantly higher risk of adverse events among those receiving LABA and ICS compared to ICS with or without placebo. Authors' Conclusions There is no clear benefit to LABA in preventing asthma exacerbations in children. While there is a paucity of evidence in this area, ICS should remain the controller therapy of choice; however, the addition of LABA to ICS may result in improvement in pulmonary function measures, reduce the use of rescue medications and improve quality of life measures in children with chronic asthma. 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".