ArticleAcute medicine & surgery2019
Methylxanthine use for acute asthma in the emergency department in Japan: a multicenter observational study.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coronavirus disease 2019 and the natural agents: Is there a role for the primary care?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimMethylxanthines are no longer recommended for emergency department (ED) patients with acute asthma according to international guidelines. We aimed to describe the current methylxanthine use for acute asthma and to determine factors related to its use in the ED.
methodsWe undertook a multicenter retrospective study in 23 EDs across Japan. From each participating hospital, we randomly identified 60 ED patients aged 18-54 years with acute asthma from 2009 through 2011. We examined the associations of ED and patient characteristics with methylxanthine use by constructing a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for a predefined set of ED- and patient-level factors.
resultsAmong 1,380 patients, methylxanthines were used for 79 patients (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-7.0%). The proportion of methylxanthine treatment varied substantially among EDs, ranging from 0% to 26.1%. In the multivariable analysis, the number of annual ED patients with acute asthma (odds ratio [OR] per 100 increase in annual asthma patients, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.34;
conclusionsIn this multicenter study, approximately 6% of ED patients with acute asthma were treated with methylxanthines, with a wide variation across EDs. The number of annual ED patients with acute asthma was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of methylxanthine use, whereas having an ED asthma treatment protocol and systemic corticosteroid use in the ED were associated with a higher likelihood of methylxanthine treatment.
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.