MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Second-line treatment option for children aged 18 years and under with an acute severe asthma exacerbation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2025· review· en· W4411634337 on OpenAlexaff
Ibtihal Abdelgadir, Khalid Mudawi, Ali Hamud, Amjad Tonbari, Adham Alhaji, Ramadan Salem, Naim Alnasif, Suhail Al‐Saleh, Aiman Zou Zou, Abdul K. Pullattayil, Colin Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAminophyllineAdverse effectAsthmaExacerbationRandomized controlled trialRelative riskNauseaAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Evidence regarding second-line treatment for severe asthma is limited. Objectives To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous aminophylline, intravenous short-acting beta agonist (SABA), intravenous magnesium sulphate, intravenous ketamine or subcutaneous adrenaline as a second-line treatment for severe asthma. Methods We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and followed the international guidelines for conducting systematic reviews. We performed a comprehensive literature search up to May 2024. Outcomes included morbidity, escalation of care, length of hospital stay, adverse events, mortality and changes in lung functions. Results Nine RCTs were included (total participants=546). Compared with other treatments, intravenous aminophylline showed no significant difference in the duration of hospital stay in hours, except for critically ill ventilated patients who had a shorter stay (mean difference (MD)=−12.99, 95 % CI −33.13 to 7.15). The need for additional intravenous medications (RR=2.17, 95 % CI 0.48 to 9.71) and asthma severity scores postinterventions (MD=0.97, 95 % CI −0.91 to 2.85) was similar. More nausea and emesis were observed in the intravenous aminophylline group. The intravenous SABA group showed no difference in hospital stay (MD=−10.12, 95 % CI −45.74 to 25.49) or need for ventilation (RR=0.25, 95 % CI 0.03 to 2.21). There were no frequent serious adverse events. The intravenous magnesium sulphate group had a lower hospitalisation rate (RR=1.52, 95 % CI 1.26 to 1.84), reduced need for additional intravenous medication (RR=6.30, 95 % CI 2.62 to 15.17) and a rapid improvement in asthma severity scores (p<0.05). Conclusion There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence demonstrating the superiority of any intravenous second-line treatment options for acute asthma. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023405226.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.034
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207