MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Summary of the Evidence for the Management of Nebulized Inhalation in Children

2023· preprint· en· W4323363295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanting Zhang, Shanzhen Yu, Xinxin Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCochrane LibraryExcellenceCINAHLMEDLINESystematic reviewEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicineNiceFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingPsychological interventionPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : To summarize the best evidence on the management of aerosol inhalation in children, and to provide reference for clinical practice. Methods : According to the ‘6S’ model of evidence resources, systematically searched British Medical Journal Best Practice (BMJ Best Practice), PubMed, American Clinical Guidelines Network (AHRQ), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Guidelines Library (SIGN), and international guideline books. Library (GIN), Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Repository (CMACPG), National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Guidelines Repository (NHMRC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guidelines Repository (NICE), Evidence-Based Medicine Library (Cochrane Library), Netherlands Medical Abstracts Database (Embase), Ovid-Medline, EBSCO-CINAHL, JBI, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, European Society of Respiratory Therapy, American Society of Respiratory Therapy, Wanfang, VIP, CNKI, Medlive(Yi Mai Tong), and Sino Med. The literature resources include clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus, evidence summary, and systematic review of children’s aerosol inhalation. Two researchers independently conducted quality evaluation, evidence extraction, and evidence integration of the literature. Results : A total of 11 papers were included, including 2 guidelines, 6 expert consensus papers, 1 systematic review, and 2 evidence summaries; finally, 6 evidence themes were formed: principles of aerosol drug use, selection of aerosol devices, effects of aerosolization factors of nebulization effect, management during nebulization treatment, infection control; a total of 34 evidence opinions. Conclusion : The summarized evidence on children’s aerosol inhalation can be applied to clinical practice according to the actual clinical situation, promote the standardized management of children’s aerosol inhalation, and improve the therapeutic effect of aerosolization.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0160.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery→French-language works237,207→