SynthesisPaediatric drugs2020
Efficacy of Macrolides on Acute Asthma or Wheezing Exacerbations in Children with Recurrent Wheezing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Paediatric drugs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Evidence-based guideline for clinical practice in the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of recurrent wheezing in infants and toddlers in China.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Childhood asthma heterogeneity at the era of precision medicine: Modulating the immune response or the microbiota for the management of asthma attack.Biochemical pharmacology · 2020Review
- Article
- Role of long-term azithromycin therapy for severe bronchial asthma.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe role of macrolides for treatment of children with acute asthma or wheezing exacerbations is unclear.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of macrolides in children with recurrent wheezing presenting with acute asthma or wheezing exacerbation.
methodsWe conducted an electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of macrolides (any macrolide) compared with placebo or standard treatment in children up to 18 years with recurrent wheezing/asthma presenting with an acute exacerbation. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were need for hospitalization and/or time of acute asthma/wheezing symptoms resolution; secondary outcomes were duration of stay in the emergency department (ED)/clinic, severity of symptoms of the index episode, use of additional systemic corticosteroids or short active β-2 agonists, changes in lung function measures, ED visit/hospitalization during first week after index episode, time to next exacerbation, or adverse effects (AEs).
resultsOnly three studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 334 children, 410 treated episodes); two studies included recurrent wheezers and the third included asthmatic children. There was no difference in hospitalization between groups, but children treated with macrolides had a significantly lower time to symptoms resolution than controls, although the magnitude of benefit remains to be quantified due to no normal distribution data presented. There was no difference in time to next episode of exacerbation (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.71-1.28; I
conclusionsLimited evidence support that a macrolide trial could be considered in children with acute asthma or recurrent wheezing exacerbation.
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.