Utility of Hypertonic Saline in the Management of Acute Bronchiolitis in Infants: A Randomised Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchiolitis is a common lower respiratory tract ailment usually affects infants. With few effective treatments, the health care cost of managing bronchiolitis is significant; Cochrane data base review has cited sufficient evidence regarding the usefulness of hypertonic saline in cystic fibrosis patients. Hypertonic saline has recently been given a trial in patients with acute bronchiolitis. We undertook the study to determine the efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline (3%) plus adrenaline nebulisation in bronchiolitis in infants and to compare it with normal saline (0.9%) plus adrenaline nebulisation. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients attending Paediatrics Emergency at GMSH, Sector-16, Chandigarh between the age group of 2 to 12 months and admitted with clinical diagnosis of acute bronchiolitis were enrolled for the study. Results: Baseline clinical symptoms and signs were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference found between 2 groups in relation to clinical signs (respiratory rate, RDAI, heart rate and SpO 2 ) pre and post nebulisation on day 1 as well as on day 2. The change in clinical parameters pre and post nebulisation in 2 groups was comparable. The mean ± SD length of stay in hospital in hypertonic saline and normal saline group was 3.92 ± 1.72 days and 4.08 ± 1.90 days respectively. There was no significant difference noted between two groups (P = 0.67). Conclusion: Nebulisation with hypertonic saline plus adrenaline and normal saline plus adrenaline are equally effective in the treatment of acute bronchiolitis in infants. Nebulisation with hypertonic saline is a safe option of treatment in acute bronchiolitis in children. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/ijcp96w
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".