The Efficacy of Nebulized Racemic Epinephrine in Children with Acute Asthma: A Randomized, Double‐blind Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent work in bronchiolitis has demonstrated a significant clinical improvement in children treated with epinephrine over nebulized salbutamol. The objective of this study was to determine whether nebulized epinephrine, as compared with nebulized salbutamol, causes a greater clinical improvement in children with acute asthma. METHODS: Children, aged 1 to 17 years, with acute asthma presenting to the emergency department (ED) were eligible. In this double-blind study, patients were randomly allocated to receive either salbutamol or racemic epinephrine by nebulization at 0, 20, and 40 minutes. All patients received oral steroids. The primary outcome measure was a change in pulmonary index score (PIS). RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized. The groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, asthma severity, previous treatments, and use of inhaled steroids. There was no significant difference between treatments in the change in PIS, length of stay, admission to hospital, or relapse rate. The epinephrine-treated group had significantly more minor side effects (such as excess or brownish nasal discharge). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant clinical benefit of nebulized epinephrine over salbutamol in children 1-17 years old with mild to moderate acute asthma. Salbutamol remains the treatment of choice in children with known asthma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".