SynthesisBMJ open2022
Deprescribing montelukast in children with asthma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Development and validation of deprescribing algorithms for kidney failure using consensus development methodology.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Montelukast deprescribing in outpatient specialty clinics: A single center cross-sectional study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational and international asthma guidelines recommend adjusting asthma treatment based on levels of control, yet no guidance is given regarding the stepping-down of montelukast in children and young people (CYP).
objectiveTo systematically review evidence regarding deprescribing montelukast in CYP with established asthma.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to October 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies contained patients aged 0-18 years with a diagnosis of asthma, who had been administering montelukast before it was withdrawn. All reasons for withdrawal were included.
resultsThe search identified 197 papers. After deduplication, five papers were included (three randomised control studies and two cohort studies). Four studies observed the impact of montelukast withdrawal for 2 weeks, and one study for 8 weeks. The impact of withdrawal was measured in the studies using a combination of lung tests (eg, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO)), asthma scoring methods and exercise challenges. Of the 17 domains in the Core Outcome Set for Clinical Trials in Childhood Asthma, eight outcomes were measured in at least one of the five studies, with all five studies measuring the outcome of 'Lung Function'. No significant differences were found between the montelukast and placebo groups following montelukast withdrawal. Significant differences between the comparator points within the test group were found in nine outcomes across four studies; FEV1/forced vital capacity, FEV1, forced expiratory flows (25%-75%), asthma score (study specific), maximum % fall in FEV1 and time to recovery (post exercise) significantly decreased whereas FEV1/bronchodilator response, FeNO and eNO significantly increased.
conclusionOnly limited, contradictory and short-term effects of deprescribing montelukast in CYP with established asthma are presented in literature. Definitive studies determining clinical stability, and impact of deprescribing montelukast in CYP are imperative to improve the safety of asthma treatment in CYP. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020213971.
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.