SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Feather vs. non-feather bedding for asthma.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for managing asthma in pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Feather bedding and childhood asthma associated with house dust mite sensitisation: a randomised controlled trial.Archives of disease in childhood · 2011Trial
- A meta-analysis of baseline characteristics in trials on mite allergen avoidance in asthmatics: room for improvement.Clinical and translational allergy · 2020Review
- A reintroduction of environmental mite allergen control strategies for asthma treatment and the debate on their effectiveness.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2019Review
- An integrative review of systematic reviews related to the management of breathlessness in respiratory illnesses.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo recent epidemiological studies have reported that children using non-feather pillows suffered from more frequent episodes of wheeze than those using feather pillows
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of using feather bedding in the control of asthma symptoms. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group asthma clinical trials register, derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE and hand searching of major journals, was searched using the terms: feather OR bed* OR linen* OR pillow SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised or controlled clinical trials were to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No trials met the inclusion criteria for the review. MAIN
results126 abstracts were identified. Ten of these were identified as possibly meeting the entry criteria, but on review of the full paper not were suitable. The reasons for exclusion were: not a randomised trial (n=6); allocation of bedding type combined with another intervention (n=4). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsWhilst recent epidemiological studies suggest that feather bedding is associated with less frequent wheeze than man-made fibre fillings, the evidence currently available is insufficient to assess the clinical benefits of feather bedding in the management of asthma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.