A randomised controlled trial comparing epinephrine and dexamethasone to placebo in the treatment of infants with bronchiolitis: the Bronchiolitis in Infants Placebo <i>versus</i> Epinephrine and Dexamethasone (BIPED) study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Bronchiolitis exerts a significant burden of illness on infants worldwide. National guidelines advise only supportive care. There is evidence that treating infants with bronchiolitis with a combination of inhaled epinephrine and dexamethasone may reduce hospital admissions. Objective The aim of this study is to determine if infants with bronchiolitis treated with inhaled epinephrine (delivered by metered dose inhaler with spacer or nebuliser) in the emergency department and a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone have fewer hospitalisations compared to infants treated with placebo. Methods The BIPED study (Bronchiolitis in Infants Placebo versus Epinephrine and Dexamethasone) is a randomised, placebo-controlled, observer, investigator, clinician and patient blinded superiority clinical trial being conducted in 12 emergency departments across three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia). We will recruit 864 infants between 60 days and 12 months of age with bronchiolitis to receive either: 1) two inhaled epinephrine treatments (3 mg via nebuliser or 625 µg via metered dose inhaler with spacer) 30 min apart and a simultaneous dose of oral dexamethasone (0.6 mg·kg−1, maximum 10 mg) in the emergency department with the dexamethasone repeated at 24 h; or 2) inhaled placebo and oral placebo. The primary outcome is hospital admission for bronchiolitis within 7 days (168 h) of enrolment. Secondary outcomes include hospital admission during enrolment and all-cause hospital admissions within 21 days of enrolment. Conclusion Given the burden of bronchiolitis, there is urgent need for a trial to confirm if combination therapy with epinephrine and dexamethasone is effective.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".