Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Epinefrina para la bronquiolitis

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003123.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 15 junio 2011see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Lisa Hartling

    Correspondencia a: Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Liza M Bialy

    Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Ben Vandermeer

    Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence & University of Alberta Evidence‐based Practice Centre, Edmonton, Canada

  • Lisa Tjosvold

    Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • David W Johnson

    Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Canada

  • Amy C Plint

    Departments of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

  • Terry P Klassen

    Manitoba Institute of Child Health, Winnipeg, Canada

  • Hema Patel

    Department of Pediatrics, The Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Canada

  • Ricardo M Fernandes

    Departamento da Criança e da Família (Child and Family Department) and Farmacologia Clínica e Terapêutica (Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Unit), Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte EPE and Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Contributions of authors

LH contributed to protocol development, searching, relevance and inclusion screening, quality assessment, data extraction, analysis and writing the review.
LB contributed to relevance and inclusion screening, quality assessment, data extraction, analysis and writing the review.
BV contributed to protocol development, analysis and editing the review.
LT contributed to the development and execution of the search strategy and editing the review.
DWJ contributed to relevance and inclusion screening, analysis and editing the review.
ACP contributed to relevance and inclusion screening, analysis and editing the review.
TPK contributed to protocol development, relevance and inclusion screening, analysis and editing the review.
HP contributed to review of protocol, interpretation of results and editing the review.
RMF contributed to protocol development, searching, relevance and inclusion screening, quality assessment, data extraction, analysis and writing the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE), Canada.

External sources

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada.

  • Programme for Advanced Medical Education (Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Fundação Champalimaud, Ministério da Saúde and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia), Portugal.

    Ricardo M Fernandes (Fellowship)

Declarations of interest

ACP, HP, DWJ and TPK are authors and/or co‐authors on trials included in this review. No other declarations of interest are noted.

Acknowledgements

We thank Marlene Dorgan and Ellen Crumley for their assistance with searching for the initial review. We thank Dr. Metin Gulmezoglum for his assistance with translation and data extraction of the Turkish studies for the initial review. We would like to acknowledge the previous review authors Kelly Russell and Natasha Wiebe for their work on the original document.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to the most recent update: Ms. Annabritt Chisholm (article retrieval), Ms. Heather McPhee (study inclusion, quality assessment and data extraction), Ms. Nicola Hooton (study selection), Ms. Andrea Milne (screening, study inclusion, quality assessment and data extraction), Dr. Özge Tunçalp (Turkish translation), Joy Lee (Korean translation), João Franco (Spanish translation), Mohammad Karkhaneh (Farsi translation) and Paolo Valerio (Dutch translation). Finally we thank the following people for commenting on this updated review: Thiagarajan Jaiganesh, Vishal Jatana, Sara Ahronheim, Robert Ware and Inge Axelsson.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Jun 15

Epinephrine for bronchiolitis

Review

Lisa Hartling, Liza M Bialy, Ben Vandermeer, Lisa Tjosvold, David W Johnson, Amy C Plint, Terry P Klassen, Hema Patel, Ricardo M Fernandes

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003123.pub3

2004 Jan 26

Epinephrine for bronchiolitis

Review

Lisa Hartling, Kelly F Russell, Hema Patel, Terry P Klassen, Yuanyuan Liang

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003123.pub2

2001 Apr 02

Epinephrine for bronchiolitis

Protocol

Lisa Hartling, Terry P Klassen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003123

Notes

We made the following changes to this 2010 update based on consultations with clinicians and authors.

  1. We modified the inclusion criteria to include definitions of bronchiolitis that specified first episode of wheezing.

  2. The outcome 'improvement' has been excluded.

  3. Analyses of return visits, hospital re‐admissions, risk of bias and synergies of drug combinations have been added.

  4. Comparisons of epinephrine plus dexamethasone versus placebo, epinephrine plus dexamethasone versus salbutamol, epinephrine versus salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide have been added.

  5. The search strategy for this review along with Glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants and young children (Fernandes 2010) were part of a comprehensive synthesis project evaluating the effect of various interventions in bronchiolitis, i.e. bronchodilators, epinephrine and steroids.

  6. Based on the data available in the included studies the time points from the previous review (change from baseline at 30, 60 and 90 minutes) have been modified to include the following: change from baseline at 60 minutes, 120 minutes, three to six hours, 6 to 12 hours, 12 to 24 hours, 24 to 72 hours and 3 to 10 days.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.