MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237300379 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001276

Intravenous aminophylline for acute severe asthma in children over 2 years using inhaled bronchodilators

2000· review· en· W4237300379 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Mitra, Dirk Bassler, FM Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAminophyllineMedicineAsthmaBronchodilatorPlaceboAcute severe asthmaRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaPediatricsInternal medicineRespiratory diseaseLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intravenous aminophylline was the bronchodilator of choice for many years until supplanted by more effective bronchodilators in the treatment of acute paediatric asthma. Recently there has been renewed interest in this therapy for children with acute severe asthma. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether addition of intravenous aminophylline produces a beneficial effect in children with acute severe asthma receiving oxygen, maximised inhaled bronchodilators and oral/intravenous glucocorticoids. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group register of trials (based on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and hand searched respiratory journals) and reference lists of relevant articles were used to identify relevant studies. The latest search was carried out in October 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised-controlled trials comparing intravenous aminophylline with placebo in children treated with inhaled bronchodilators and systemic glucocorticoids for acute asthma were considered for this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Full text of 35 trials were anonymized for author, date and publication and two blinded independent reviewers selected eligible studies for inclusion. Disagreement was resolved through consensus. Seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Attempts were made to contact authors to verify accuracy. Results were reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidential intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Patients in these trials were predominantly school-aged children hospitalised for acute severe asthma with a baseline FEV1 at 35-40% of predicted and/or a baseline Pulmonary Index of 6-7. Aminophylline significantly improved percentage predicted FEV1 by 6 - 8 hours (WMD 8.4%; 95% CI: 0.82, 15.92%). The effect was maintained for 24 hours. Improvements were also seen in symptom scores at 6-8 hours (WMD= -0.71; 95% CI: -0.82,-0.60). There was no reduction in hospital stay or in number of nebulisers required. Vomiting was more likely with aminophylline therapy (Relative Risk = 3.69; 95% CI: 2.15, 6.33). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Addition of intravenous aminophylline should be considered early in the treatment of children hospitalised with acute severe asthma with sub optimal response to the initial inhaled bronchodilator therapy. Although the improvement is sustained for 24 hours, there is no apparent reduction in length of hospital stay or number of inhaled beta2-agonists nebulisations. Treatment with aminophylline is associated with an increased risk of vomiting.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207