MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194276216 · doi:10.1002/ppul.25595

Paracetamol exposure and asthma: What does the evidence say? An overview of systematic reviews

2021· review· en· W3194276216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manvi Singh, Suresh Varukolu, Anil Chauhan, Nishant Jaiswal, Pranita Pradhan, Joseph L. Mathew, Meenu Singh

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINECochrane LibraryAsthmaOdds ratioPediatricsFamily medicineMeta-analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To conduct an umbrella review collating the existing evidence to determine whether there is an association between exposure of Paracetamol in‐utero or in infancy and the development of childhood Asthma. Methods In this review, systematic reviews with or without meta‐analysis that reported the association between paracetamol and asthma in children were included. To identify relevant reviews, a search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ovid MEDLINE. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42020156023. A separate search was conducted for primary studies from the last 5 years not yet included in systematic reviews reporting the association from January 2016 to March 2021. Results The electronic searches identified 1966 review titles. After the removal of 493 duplicates, 1475 titles and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria. Full‐text screening yielded six systematic reviews to be included in this review. The search for primary studies in the last 5 years yielded 1214 hits, out of which 5 studies were found suitable for inclusion. Three of them, that were not included in the systematic reviews, and have been summarised in this paper. The odds ratios (ORs) for the outcome of asthma in offspring of mothers with prenatal paracetamol consumption in any trimester were 1.28 (1.13–1.39) and 1.21 (1.02–1.44). For first trimester exposures, they were 1.12 (0.99–1.27), 1.39 (1.01–1.91), and 1.21 (1.14–1.28), for the second or third trimester, they were 1.49 (1.37 – 1.63) and 1.13 (1.04–1.23). For the third trimester only, the figure was 1.17 (1.04–1.31). Of the six reviews included, 1 had a low risk of bias, 2 had an unclear risk while 3 had a high risk of bias assessed using the ROBIS tool. There was no significant increased risk of asthma with early infancy exposure. The inter‐study heterogeneity varied from I 2 = 41% to I 2 = 76% across reviews. In the primary studies, the OR for prenatal exposure ranged from 1.12 (0.25–4.98) to 4.66 (1.92–11.3) and for infancy exposure was 1.56 (1.06–2.30). All three included primary studies were adjudged to be of high quality using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Conclusions There is a modest association between paracetamol exposure in‐utero and the future development of asthma. Exposure in infancy has a less consistant association. All the studies done thus far are observational in nature, with their inherent biases. Further research, preferably randomized controlled trials are recommended to answer this pertinent question.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207