Methylxanthines for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the addition of methylxanthines to standard treatments in patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCE: The Cochrane airways review group's COPD register. Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. SELECTION OF STUDIES: Four trials met the inclusion criteria, with 169 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean change in spirometry, clinical end points, symptom scores, and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean change in forced expiratory volume at one second at two hours was similar in methylxanthine and placebo groups but transiently increased with methylxanthines at three days. Non-significant reductions in admissions to hospital and length of stay were offset by a non-significant increase in relapses at one week. Changes in symptom scores did not reach significance. Methylxanthines caused more nausea and vomiting than placebo (odds ratio 4.6, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.6), and non-significant increases in tremor, palpitations, and arrhythmias were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: The available data do not support the use of methylxanthines for the treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Potential benefits of methylxanthines for lung function and symptoms were generally not confirmed at standard levels of significance, whereas the potentially important adverse events of nausea and vomiting were significantly increased in patients receiving methylxanthines.
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 | 0.022 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".