MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293072536 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201164

Efficacy of Prednisolone for Bell Palsy in Children

2022· article· en· W4293072536 on OpenAlexaff
Franz E Babl, David Herd, Meredith L Borland, Amit Kochar, Ben Lawton, Jason Hort, Adam West, Shane George, Michael Zhang, Velusamy Karthik, Frank Sullivan, Ed Oakley, Andrew Davidson, Sandy M Hopper, John A Cheek, Robert G. Berkowitz, Stephen Hearps, Catherine Wilson, Amanda Williams, Hannah Elborough, Donna Legge, Mark T. Mackay, Katherine J. Lee, Stuart R. Dalziel

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilState Government of VictoriaCure KidsChildren's Hospital FoundationRoyal Children's Hospital FoundationMurdoch Children's Research InstituteMedical Research CouncilChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research Institute
KeywordsBell's palsyPrednisoloneBell PalsyMedicinePediatricsPalsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Corticosteroids are used to treat the early stages of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell palsy) in children, but their effectiveness is uncertain. We set out to determine whether prednisolone improves the proportion of children with Bell palsy with complete recovery at 1 month. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of prednisolone in children presenting to emergency departments with Bell palsy. Patients aged 6 months to younger than 18 years were recruited within 72 hours after the symptom onset and were randomly assigned to receive 10 days of treatment with oral prednisolone (approximately 1 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was complete recovery of facial function at 1 month rated on the House-Brackmann scale. Secondary outcomes included facial function, adverse events, and pain up to 6 months. Target recruitment was n = 540 (270 per group). RESULTS: Between October 13, 2015, and August 23, 2020, 187 children were randomized (94 to prednisolone and 93 to placebo) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 1 month, the proportions of patients who had recovered facial function were 49% (n = 43/87) in the prednisolone group compared with 57% (n = 50/87) in the placebo group (risk difference -8.1%, 95% CI -22.8 to 6.7; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.3). At 3 months, these proportions were 90% (n = 71/79) for the prednisolone group vs 85% (n = 72/85) for the placebo group (risk difference 5.2%, 95% CI -5.0 to 15.3; aOR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.0) and, at 6 months, 99% (n = 77/78) and 93% (n = 76/82), respectively (risk difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.1 to 12.2; aOR 3.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 17.7). There were no serious adverse events and little evidence for group differences in secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In children with Bell palsy, the vast majority recover without treatment. This study, although underpowered, does not provide evidence that early treatment with prednisolone improves complete recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000563561, registered June 1, 2015. anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368505&isReview=true. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for children with Bell palsy, prednisolone does not significantly change recovery of complete facial function at 1 month. However, this study lacked the precision to exclude an important harm or benefit from prednisolone.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207