Strategies for Medical Management of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is associated with significant morbidity in children. Strategies for optimizing its outcomes are hence essential. We aimed to review the strategies for medical management of EoE in children. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical interventions in children with EoE, using the Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Library, and Google scholar were searched up to March 2016. Primary outcomes included histological (peak eosinophil count) and symptomatic remission. Secondary outcomes were improvement in endoscopic and other histological parameters and adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 5 RCTs (N = 448) with low to unclear risk of bias were included. The interventions included topical oral steroids, swallowed enteral steroids and anti- interleukin (IL)5 agent. Pooling of data from all trials was not possible owing to significant heterogeneity in interventions. Meta-analysis of data (N = 141) from 3 RCTs (oral viscous budesonide: 2, fluticasone: 1) showed significant histological remission in the intervention versus control group participants (risk difference: 10.32 [95% confidence interval: 3.04, 35.03]; P = 0.0002), level of evidence-low. Compared with anti-IL5 agent, the trials assessing steroids reported high rates of clinical remission. Clinical remission did not correlate with histological improvement in any trial. Except for systemic corticosteroids, there were no significant adverse effects related to other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Limited low-quality evidence exists on the effects of various interventions in children with EoE. The beneficial effects of swallowed steroid need to be confirmed in large well-designed RCTs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".