MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010457784 · doi:10.1002/ebch.580

Cochrane review: Nebulized hypertonic saline solution for acute bronchiolitis in infants

2010· article· en· W2010457784 on OpenAlexaff
Linjie Zhang, Raúl Andrés Mendoza-Sassi, Claire Wainwright, Terry P. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertonic salineBronchiolitisCochrane LibrarySalineAnesthesiaInhalationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Airway edema and mucus plugging are the predominant pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulized hypertonic saline solution may reduce these pathological changes and decrease airway obstruction. Objectives To assess the effects of nebulized hypertonic saline solution in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library2007, issue 4), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialized Register; OLDMEDLINE (1951 to 1965); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007); EMBASE (1974 to November 2007); and LILACS (November 2007). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs using nebulized hypertonic saline alone or in conjunction with bronchodilators as an active intervention in infants up to 24 months of age with acute bronchiolitis. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (ZL, MRA) independently performed data extraction and study quality assessment. We pooled the data from individual trials using the Cochrane statistical package Review Manager (RevMan). Main results We included four trials involving 254 infants with acute viral bronchiolitis (189 inpatients and 65 outpatients) in this review. Patients treated with nebulized 3% saline had a significantly shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those treated with nebulized 0.9% saline (mean difference (MD) ‐0.94 days, 95% CI ‐1.48 to ‐0.40, P = 0.0006). The 3% saline group also had a significantly lower post‐inhalation clinical score than the 0.9% saline group in the first three days of treatment (day 1: MD ‐0.75, 95% CI ‐1.38 to ‐0.12, P = 0.02; day 2: MD ‐1.18, 95% CI ‐1.97 to ‐0.39, P = 0.003; day 3: MD ‐1.28, 95% CI ‐2.57 to 0.00, P = 0.05). The effect of nebulized hypertonic saline in improving clinical score was greater among outpatients than inpatients. No adverse events related to 3% saline inhalation were reported. Authors' conclusions Current evidence suggests nebulized 3% saline may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay and improve the clinical severity score in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Plain Language Summary Nebulized hypertonic saline solution for acute bronchiolitis in infants Acute viral bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, but the standard treatment remains supportive care. This review was conducted to assess the effects of nebulized hypertonic saline, which can increase clearance of mucus, in these patients. Four randomized trials involving 254 infants were included. Analysis of the pooled data suggests that nebulized 3% saline may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay and improve the clinical severity score in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis.There were no adverse effects noted with nebulized hypertonic saline when administered along with bronchodilators.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207