ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2016
Argument against the Routine Use of Steroids for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2016. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19, corticosteroids and public health: a reappraisal.Public health · 2021Pooled it
- Paediatrics: how to manage acute respiratory distress syndrome.Drugs in context · 2021Review
- Steroids in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Steroids have a plausible mechanism of action of reducing severity of lung disease in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but have failed to show consistent benefits in patient-centered outcomes. Many studies have confounding from the likely presence of ventilator-induced lung injury and steroids may have shown benefit because administration minimized ongoing inflammation incited by injurious ventilator settings. If steroids have benefit, it is likely for specific populations that fall within the heterogeneous diagnosis of ARDS. Those pediatric patients with concurrent active asthma or reactive airway disease of prematurity, in addition to ARDS, are the most common group likely to derive benefit from steroids, but are poorly studied. With the information currently available, it does not appear that the typical adult or pediatric patient with ARDS derives benefit from steroids and steroids should not be given on a routine basis.
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.