MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281665359 · doi:10.18433/jpps32738

Short Acting Beta Agonist Use Associated with Increased Mortality and Morbidity in Asthma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4281665359 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yiyun Hu, Janice Y. Kung, Dimitri Galatis, Hoan Linh Banh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExacerbationOdds ratioMeta-analysisAsthmaInternal medicineMortality rateEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Short acting b2 agonists are recommended to be used ≤ 2 canisters per year. It is suggested that overuse of b2 agonists will lead to increased morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine if overuse of b2 agonists result in increased morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine if overuse of b2 agonists cause increase mortality, ICU admissions, hospitalization, and exacerbation. RESULTS: A total of 11,888 publications were identified and 4260 duplications were removed, resulting in 7268 abstracts that were screened and 7254 irrelevant studies that were excluded. Ultimately, 14 studies were included. The overall pooled estimated odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.05), 0.99 for ICU admission (95% CI: 0.80, 1.21), 1.22 for hospitalization (95% CI: 0.96, 1.31), and 0.99 for exacerbation (95% CI: 0.85, 1.15). CONCLUSION: There is no statistical difference in mortality, ICU admission rate, hospitalization, or exacerbation with using b2 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207