Matthew D Wong, Kathleena Condon, Paul D Robinson, Sadasivam Suresh, Syeda Farah Zahir, Peter D Sly, Tamara L Blake
{"title":"评估学龄前儿童对支气管扩张剂的反应:系统综述。","authors":"Matthew D Wong, Kathleena Condon, Paul D Robinson, Sadasivam Suresh, Syeda Farah Zahir, Peter D Sly, Tamara L Blake","doi":"10.1002/ppul.27112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several techniques can be used to assess bronchodilator response (BDR) in preschool-aged children, including spirometry, respiratory oscillometry, the interrupter technique, and specific airway resistance. However, there has not been a systematic comparison of BDR thresholds across studies yet.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed on all studies up to May 2023 measuring a bronchodilator effect in children 2-6 years old using one of these techniques (PROSPERO CRD42021264659). Studies were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science databases, and reference lists of relevant manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1224 screened studies, 43 were included. Over 85% were from predominantly European ancestry populations, and only 22 studies (51.2%) calculated a BDR cutoff based on a healthy control group. Five studies included triplicate testing with a placebo to account for the within-subject intrasession repeatability. A relative BDR was most consistently reported by the included studies (95%) but varied widely across all techniques. Various statistical methods were used to define a BDR, with six studies using receiver operating characteristic analyses to measure the discriminative power to distinguish healthy from wheezy and asthmatic children.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A BDR in 2- to 6-year-olds cannot be universally defined based on the reviewed literature due to inconsistent methodology and cutoff calculations. Further studies incorporating robust methods using either distribution-based or clinical anchor-based approaches to define BDR are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":19932,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Pulmonology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of bronchodilator response in preschoolers: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew D Wong, Kathleena Condon, Paul D Robinson, Sadasivam Suresh, Syeda Farah Zahir, Peter D Sly, Tamara L Blake\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ppul.27112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several techniques can be used to assess bronchodilator response (BDR) in preschool-aged children, including spirometry, respiratory oscillometry, the interrupter technique, and specific airway resistance. However, there has not been a systematic comparison of BDR thresholds across studies yet.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed on all studies up to May 2023 measuring a bronchodilator effect in children 2-6 years old using one of these techniques (PROSPERO CRD42021264659). Studies were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science databases, and reference lists of relevant manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1224 screened studies, 43 were included. Over 85% were from predominantly European ancestry populations, and only 22 studies (51.2%) calculated a BDR cutoff based on a healthy control group. Five studies included triplicate testing with a placebo to account for the within-subject intrasession repeatability. A relative BDR was most consistently reported by the included studies (95%) but varied widely across all techniques. Various statistical methods were used to define a BDR, with six studies using receiver operating characteristic analyses to measure the discriminative power to distinguish healthy from wheezy and asthmatic children.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A BDR in 2- to 6-year-olds cannot be universally defined based on the reviewed literature due to inconsistent methodology and cutoff calculations. Further studies incorporating robust methods using either distribution-based or clinical anchor-based approaches to define BDR are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Pulmonology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Pulmonology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.27112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.27112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment of bronchodilator response in preschoolers: A systematic review.
Background: Several techniques can be used to assess bronchodilator response (BDR) in preschool-aged children, including spirometry, respiratory oscillometry, the interrupter technique, and specific airway resistance. However, there has not been a systematic comparison of BDR thresholds across studies yet.
Methods: A systematic review was performed on all studies up to May 2023 measuring a bronchodilator effect in children 2-6 years old using one of these techniques (PROSPERO CRD42021264659). Studies were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science databases, and reference lists of relevant manuscripts.
Results: Of 1224 screened studies, 43 were included. Over 85% were from predominantly European ancestry populations, and only 22 studies (51.2%) calculated a BDR cutoff based on a healthy control group. Five studies included triplicate testing with a placebo to account for the within-subject intrasession repeatability. A relative BDR was most consistently reported by the included studies (95%) but varied widely across all techniques. Various statistical methods were used to define a BDR, with six studies using receiver operating characteristic analyses to measure the discriminative power to distinguish healthy from wheezy and asthmatic children.
Conclusion: A BDR in 2- to 6-year-olds cannot be universally defined based on the reviewed literature due to inconsistent methodology and cutoff calculations. Further studies incorporating robust methods using either distribution-based or clinical anchor-based approaches to define BDR are required.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Pulmonology (PPUL) is the foremost global journal studying the respiratory system in disease and in health as it develops from intrauterine life though adolescence to adulthood. Combining explicit and informative analysis of clinical as well as basic scientific research, PPUL provides a look at the many facets of respiratory system disorders in infants and children, ranging from pathological anatomy, developmental issues, and pathophysiology to infectious disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and airborne toxins. Focused attention is given to the reporting of diagnostic and therapeutic methods for neonates, preschool children, and adolescents, the enduring effects of childhood respiratory diseases, and newly described infectious diseases.
PPUL concentrates on subject matters of crucial interest to specialists preparing for the Pediatric Subspecialty Examinations in the United States and other countries. With its attentive coverage and extensive clinical data, this journal is a principle source for pediatricians in practice and in training and a must have for all pediatric pulmonologists.