Nedocromil sodium<i>versus</i>sodium cromoglycate in treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review was to compare the effects of prophylactic doses of nedocromil sodium (NCS) and sodium cromoglycate (SCG) on postexercise lung function, in persons diagnosed with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Randomized controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Asthma Register, plus hand searching for trials in journals, bibliographies of relevant studies and review articles. Randomized controlled trials comparing NCS to SCG in prophylactic treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction were eligible. Studies were pooled using odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for continuous outcomes. No significant differences were noted between NCS and SCG with respect to the maximum per cent decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second (WMD=-0.88; 95% CI -4.50-2.74), complete protection (OR=0.95; 95% CI 0.50-1.81), clinical protection (OR=0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.39), unpleasant taste (OR=6.85; 95% CI 0.77-60.73), or sore throat (OR=3.46; 95% CI 0.32-37.48). Subgroup analyses based on age, dosages of medications and timing of exercise postinhalation were consistent with the overall pooled analyses. No significant differences were evident between the effects of nedocromil sodium and sodium cromoglycate during the immediate postexercise period in adults and children with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, with regards to maximum per cent decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second, complete protection, or clinical protection. Side-effect profiles were similar.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".