MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156407990 · doi:10.1542/peds.2020-040816

Comparative Efficacy of Bronchiolitis Interventions in Acute Care: A Network Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3156407990 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah A. Elliott, L. Gaudet, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Ben Vandermeer, Stephen B. Freedman, David W. Johnson, Amy C. Plint, Terry P. Klassen, D Allain, Lisa Hartling

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaAlberta Children’s Hospital FoundationCochraneAlberta Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBronchiolitisOdds ratioConfidence intervalHypertonic salineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialRelative riskContext (archaeology)PlaceboAdverse effectMeta-analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Uncertainty exists as to which treatments are most effective for bronchiolitis, with considerable practice variation within and across health care sites. OBJECTIVE: A network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of common treatments for bronchiolitis in children aged ≤2 years. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from inception to September 1, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: A total 150 randomized controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and independently verified. Primary outcomes were admission rate on day 1 and by day 7 and hospital length of stay. Strength of evidence was assessed by using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis . RESULTS: Nebulized epinephrine (odds ratio: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44 to 0.93, low confidence) and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol (odds ratio: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.84, low confidence) reduced the admission rate on day 1. No treatment significantly reduced the admission rate on day 7. Nebulized hypertonic saline (mean difference: -0.64 days, 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.26, low confidence) and nebulized hypertonic saline plus epinephrine (mean difference: -0.91 days, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.40, low confidence) reduced hospital length of stay. LIMITATIONS: Because we did not report adverse events in this analysis, we cannot make inferences about the safety of these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although hypertonic saline alone, or combined with epinephrine, may reduce an infant's stay in the hospital, poor strength of evidence necessitates additional rigorous trials.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.050
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207