MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239173101 · doi:10.1002/ebch.613

<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and the treatment of croup in children: an overview of reviews

2010· article· en· W4239173101 on OpenAlexaff
Candice Bjornson, Kelly Russell, Michelle Foisy, David W. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsCochraneUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCroupMedicinePlaceboStridorHelioxCochrane LibraryPediatricsAnesthesiaEpinephrineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAirway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Croup is an illness characterized by barky cough, stridor, hoarseness, and occasionally respiratory distress. It is a relatively mild and short‐lived illness for the majority of children. However, a small proportion of children have moderate to severe symptoms and are at risk of hospital admission, and in the most severe cases, intubation. Objective To synthesize the evidence currently in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) related to the clinical effectiveness and applicability of four treatments for croup: glucocorticoids, epinephrine, heliox and humidified air. Methods The CDSR was searched for all systematic reviews containing the term ‘croup’ in the title. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of croup in children were included. Data were extracted, compiled into tables and synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main Results Four reviews examining the treatment of croup were included in this overview. Children treated with epinephrine vs placebo had a significantly lower croup score at 30 min (SMD: − 0.94; 95% CI: − 1.37, − 0.51), and children treated with glucocorticoids vs placebo had significantly lower croup scores at both 6 h and 12 h (SMD: − 0.59; 95% CI: − 0.83, − 0.35 and SMD: − 0.65; 95% CI: − 1.03, − 0.27). Glucocorticoids vs placebo also significantly reduced inpatient length of stay (MD: − 10.33; 95% CI: − 17.33, − 3.36) and risk of return visits and/or re‐admissions (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.71). Neither humidified air nor heliox were associated with significant reductions in croup score; however, there is a paucity of evidence examining treatment with heliox. Author's Conclusions Glucocorticoids are effective for children with mild croup, and both nebulized epinephrine and glucocorticoids are effective treatments for children presenting with moderate to severe croup that is associated with respiratory distress. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of heliox, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that humidified air is not effective in the treatment of croup. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207