Impact of hypertonic saline on hospitalization rate in infants with acute bronchiolitis: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized hypertonic saline (HS) on the rate of hospitalization in infants with acute bronchiolitis in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Virtual Health Library-BVS and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until January 31, 2018. We selected randomized trials that compared nebulized HS with normal saline (NS) or standard care in children up to 24 months of age with acute bronchiolitis in the ED setting. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 293 records were screened and 8 trials involving 1708 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed a 16% reduction in the risk of hospitalization among patients treated with HS compared to NS (risk ratio [RR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.98, P = 0.03). A significant effect of HS in reducing the risk of hospitalization was found only in the subgroup analyses of trials in which HS was mixed with bronchodilators, multiple doses (≥3) were given, and risk of bias was low. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized hypertonic saline may potentially reduce the risk of hospitalization in infants with acute bronchiolitis in the ED setting. Quality of evidence is moderate due to substantial clinical heterogeneity between studies and large multicenter trials are still warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".