MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017349759 · doi:10.36416/1806-3756/e20190095

Comparison between the health-related quality of life of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3017349759 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaQuality of life (healthcare)Meta-analysisMEDLINEHealth related quality of lifeRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewPediatricsClinical psychologyDiseaseInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers, comparing the two. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, with a strategy of searching five health-related databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, SciELO, and LILACS). We included studies that evaluated the HRQoL of children/adolescents with asthma and that of their caregivers with the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire, respectively, using the total scores and the scores on the domains activity limitation, symptoms (children/adolescents only), and emotional function. RESULTS: We identified 291 articles, and we evaluated 133 of those. A total of 33 articles, collectively including 4,101 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. An analysis stratified by study design showed no differences between the HRQoL of the caregivers and that of the children/adolescents in the activity limitation domain and in the total score. However, the mean emotional function domain scores were significantly higher (better) among children/adolescents with asthma than among their caregivers in longitudinal studies-Δ = 0.82 (0.21-1.44)-and randomized clinical trials-Δ = 0.52 (0.29-0.79)-although not in cross-sectional studies-Δ = -0.20 (-0.03 to 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: The total HRQoL scores proved to be similar between children/adolescents with asthma and their caregivers. However, the two groups differed in their perception of their emotional function, the caregivers scoring significantly lower than the children/adolescents in that domain.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.233 · 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