MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403997533 · doi:10.1542/peds.2015-4496

Preventing Exacerbations in Preschoolers With Recurrent Wheeze: A Meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2403997533 on OpenAlexaff
Sunitha V. Kaiser, Tram Huynh, Leonard B. Bacharier, Jennifer L. Rosenthal, Leigh Anne Bakel, Patricia C. Parkin, Michael D. Cabana

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMontelukastWheezePlaceboNumber needed to treatAsthmaConfidence intervalPediatricsRandomized controlled trialRelative riskSubgroup analysisInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Half of children experience wheezing by age 6 years, and optimal strategies for preventing severe exacerbations are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence of the effects of daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), intermittent ICS, and montelukast in preventing severe exacerbations among preschool children with recurrent wheeze. DATA SOURCES: Medline (1946, 2/25/15), Embase (1947, 2/25/15), CENTRAL. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included based on design (randomized controlled trials), population (children ≤6 years with asthma or recurrent wheeze), intervention and comparison (daily ICS vs placebo, intermittent ICS vs placebo, daily ICS vs intermittent ICS, ICS vs montelukast), and outcome (exacerbations necessitating systemic steroids). DATA EXTRACTION: Completed by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (N = 4550) were included. Fifteen studies (N = 3278) compared daily ICS with placebo and showed reduced exacerbations with daily medium-dose ICS (risk ratio [RR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.79; NNT = 9). Subgroup analysis of children with persistent asthma showed reduced exacerbations with daily ICS compared with placebo (8 studies, N = 2505; RR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70; NNT = 11) and daily ICS compared with montelukast (1 study, N = 202; RR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92). Subgroup analysis of children with intermittent asthma or viral-triggered wheezing showed reduced exacerbations with preemptive high-dose intermittent ICS compared with placebo (5 studies, N = 422; RR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.81; NNT = 6). LIMITATIONS: More studies are needed that directly compare these strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence to support daily ICS for preventing exacerbations in preschool children with recurrent wheeze, specifically in children with persistent asthma. For preschool children with intermittent asthma or viral-triggered wheezing, there is strong evidence to support intermittent ICS for preventing exacerbations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.043
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207