A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Epinephrine for the Treatment of Acute Viral Bronchiolitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists surrounding the use of bronchodilators for bronchiolitis. Epinephrine hydrochloride is being used with increasing frequency in this group; however, its efficacy has not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials comparing inhaled or systemic epinephrine vs placebo or other bronchodilators. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, primary authors, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they (1) were randomized, controlled trials; (2) involved children 2 years or younger with bronchiolitis; and (3) presented quantitative outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 14 studies (7 inpatient, 6 outpatient, and 1 patient status unknown). Thirteen of forty-five comparisons were significant. Among outpatients, results favored epinephrine compared with placebo for clinical score at 60 minutes (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.56 to -0.07), oxygen saturation at 30 minutes (weighted mean difference [WMD], 2.79; 95% CI, 1.50-4.08), respiratory rate at 30 minutes (WMD, -4.54; 95% CI, -8.89 to -0.19), and improvement (odds ratio, 25.06; 95% CI, 4.95-126.91); among inpatients, for clinical score at 60 minutes (SMD, -0.52; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.03). Among outpatients, results favored epinephrine compared with albuterol sulfate (salbutamol) for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes (WMD, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.38-3.44), heart rate at 90 minutes (WMD, -14.00; 95% CI, -22.95 to -5.05), respiratory rate at 60 minutes (WMD, -7.76; 95% CI, -11.35 to -4.17), and improvement (odds ratio, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.93-10.53); among inpatients, respiratory rate at 30 minutes (WMD, -5.12; 95% CI, -6.83 to -3.41). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine may be favorable compared with placebo and albuterol for short-term benefits among outpatients. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of epinephrine among inpatients. Large, multicentered trials are required before routine use among outpatients can be strongly recommended.
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 | 0.044 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.036 | 0.069 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".