Beta2-agonists for acute bronchitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for acute bronchitis is not clear. Because many patients with acute bronchitis have airflow limitation as well as cough, beta2-agonists may be useful. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether beta2-agonists improve the symptoms of acute bronchitis in patients who do not have underlying pulmonary disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library (through August 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to 2000), EMBASE (1974 to 2000), and Conference Proceedings using "bronchodilator (exp)", "adrenergic beta-agonist (exp)", or "sympathomimetics (exp)" and "bronchitis" or "cough"; Science Citation Index for referenced publications; and letters to manufacturers of beta2-agonists. An updated search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2003); MEDLINE (January 2000 to July 2003); EMBASE (January 2000 to July 2003) was run in July 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials in which patients (adults or children over two years of age) without known pulmonary disease who were diagnosed with acute bronchitis or acute cough without other cause were randomized to beta2-agonist versus placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently first selected outcomes and evaluated trial quality while blinded to study results, and then extracted data. Trials in children and in adults were analyzed separately. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials in children (n = 109) with acute cough and no evidence of airway obstruction did not find any benefits from beta2-agonists. Combined data did not show a significant difference in daily cough scores between patients given oral beta2-agonists and those in the control groups. Five trials in adults (n = 418) with acute cough or acute bronchitis had mixed results, but overall summary statistics did not reveal any significant benefits from oral (three trials) nor inhaled (two trials) beta2-agonists. There were no significant differences in daily cough scores nor in the number of patients still coughing after seven days (control rate 73%; RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.09). Subgroups of patients with evidence of airflow limitation had lower symptom scores if given beta2-agonists in one trial; and the trials that did note quicker resolution of cough in patients given beta2-agonists were those that had a higher proportion of patients with wheezing at baseline. Patients given beta2-agonists were more likely to report tremor, shakiness, or nervousness than patients in the control groups (for trials in children control rate 0%; RR 6.76, 95% CI 0.86 to 53.12, NNH 9, 95% CI 5 to 100; for trials in adults, control rate 11%; RR 7.94, 95% CI 1.17 to 53.94, NNH 2.3, 95% CI 2 to 3). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support using beta2-agonists in children with acute cough who do not have evidence of airflow obstruction. There is also little evidence that the routine use of beta2-agonists for adults with acute cough is helpful. These agents may reduce symptoms, including cough, in patients with evidence of airflow obstruction; but this potential benefit is not well-supported by the available data and must be weighed against the adverse effects associated with beta2-agonists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.014 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".