ArticleArchives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie2014
[Value of routine identification of respiratory infectious agents in children hospitalized with an acute asthma exacerbation].
Article in Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of respiratory viruses in stable and acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Do I Need Proof of the Culprit? Decreasing Respiratory Viral Testing in Critically Ill Patients.Hospital pediatrics · 2021Article
- Temporal trends and factors associated with pediatric hospitalizations with respiratory infection.The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood. With its high economic burden, it is considered a disease of major public health importance by the World Health Organization. The link between respiratory tract infections and acute exacerbation has been recognized for a long time. The aim of this retrospective study in routine care was to evaluate our practices concerning microbiological prescriptions in children hospitalized for asthma exacerbation. STUDY
designAll children aged from 2 to 15 years hospitalized for asthma exacerbation between January 2010 and December 2011 in our unit were included in the study. Microbiological prescriptions, their indications, their results, and their cost were studied.
resultsOne hundred ninety-seven children were included in the study. A potential causative agent was sought in 79.7% of the children (n=157) by immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The main indications were upper airway infections, hypoxemia, and pneumonia. Viruses were detected in 23.8% of them (30/126). Mycoplasma pneumoniae was detected by PCR in only 3.2% of these patients (4/125). No other bacterial agent was identified. There was no correlation between the severity of asthma exacerbation and the microbiological diagnosis of infection. The results did not influence the therapy given. These prescriptions represented a substantial cost for each child.
conclusionThese analyses do not seem to have a real advantage for the patient except for epidemiology. It would be important to conduct a new study analyzing the role of rhinovirus, and of other viruses such as coronavirus, bocavirus, and enterovirus, not routinely investigated in our hospital, and to question the value of these costly microbiological tests.
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.