A Randomized Controlled Trial of Mist in the Acute Treatment of Moderate Croup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To determine whether the use of mist improves clinical symptoms in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with moderate croup. Methods: Children 3 months to 6 years of age were eligible for the study if they presented to the ED with moderate croup. Moderate croup was defined as a croup score of 2‐7. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either mist (humidified oxygen) via mist stick or no mist. The patients had croup scores measured at baseline and every 30 minutes for up to two hours. At these intervals the following parameters were also measured: heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and patient comfort score. The patients were treated until the croup score was less than 2 or until two hours had elapsed. All patients initially received a dose of oral dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg). Other treatments, such as racemic epinephrine or inhaled budesonide, were given at the discretion of the treating physician. The research assistants were unaware of the assigned treatments. Results: There were 71 patients enrolled in the study; 35 received mist and 36 received no mist. The two treatment groups had similar characteristics at baseline. The median baseline croup score was 4 in both groups. The outcomes were measured as the change from baseline at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. The change in the croup score from baseline in the mist group was not statistically different from the croup score change in the group that did not receive mist (p = 0.39). There was also no significant difference in improvement of oxygen saturation, heart rate, or respiratory rate at any of the assessment times. There was no adverse effect from the mist therapy. Conclusions: Mist therapy is not effective in improving clinical symptoms in children presenting to the ED with moderate croup.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".