MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761430211 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-184

188: Corticosteroids and Antihistamines in the Treatment of Anaphylaxis: A Systematic Review

2014· review· en· W2761430211 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Dolansky, Samantha Calder‐Sprackman, Amy C. Plint, Roger Zemek

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrticaria and Related Conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaphylaxisGuidelineEmergency departmentObservational studyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEEpinephrineMeta-analysisPopulationPharmacotherapyIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineAllergyImmunologyPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a plethora of review and guideline literature in anaphylaxis, there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of pharmacological treatment. Consequently, there is wide variability in prescribing patterns and adherence to published guidelines. The objective of this study was determine if the use of epinephrine, corticosteroids or antihistamines affect rates of biphasic reactions in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with anaphylaxis. We searched Medline (1946 to September 2013) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2013) using a peer-reviewed search string to identify original, English-language studies describing pharmacological intervention for patients of all ages presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis. Exclusion criteria included single case reports, review articles, or treatment not reported. The primary outcome was the association of pharmacological treatment with biphasic reaction. Secondary outcome was the adherence to recommended guidelines for the use of pharmacotherapy in anaphylaxis. Of 1424 citiations, 1153 remained after removal of duplicates. After dual review, 35 observational studies remained. Twenty-seven studies were inlcuded in qualitative analysis, and seven studies were included in meta-analysis (pooled n=1471). Qualitative analysis revealed that current anaphylaxis guidelines are not being followed, regardless of population age or location. Corticosteroids and antihistamines are consistently prescribed more often than epinephrine. Meta-analysis revealed no significant association between of any of the medications studied and biphasic reactions. Minimal evidence supports the use of adjunctive therapy to prevent biphasic reaction for anaphylaxis. There is poor application of existing guidelines for the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis, highlighting a role for further knowledge translation. Prospective, controlled clinical trials are needed to determine the role for adjunctive medications (corticosteroids, antihistamines) in anaphylaxis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicUrticaria and Related ConditionsFrench-language works237,207