Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review

Christopher J. Cates, Elizabeth Stovold, Emma J. Welsh
Breathe 2014 10: 134-144; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.003514
Christopher J. Cates
Population Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ccates@sgul.ac.uk
Elizabeth Stovold
Population Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emma J. Welsh
Population Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Screen shot of a PubMed search using the term "spacers and acute asthma".

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Screen shot of the abstract of the Cochrane review in PubMed.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Risk of bias summary for Cochrane review comparing pMDI and spacer to nebulisers to deliver β2-agonists to adults and children with acute asthma. The red circle indicates high risk of bias, the green circle low risk and the yellow circle indicates that the risk is unclear as judged by the authors of the Cochrane Review. Figure reproduced and modified from [1] with the publisher’s permission.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Forest plot showing the number of adults (at the top) and children (lower down) who were admitted to hospital after treatment in the emergency department for an asthma exacerbation. Figure reproduced and modified from [1] with the publisher’s permission.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    For every 100 children treated with nebuliser for acute asthma, there were 11 children admitted to hospital.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    If all 100 children were treated with pMDI and spacer we expect that 8 would be admitted to hospital (95% CI 5–12).

  • Figure 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7

    Forest plot showing duration in the emergency department (in minutes). Figure reproduced and modified from [1] with the publisher’s permission.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1 Summary of findings for children: multiple treatment of β2-agonist via spacer (chamber) compared with nebuliser for children with acute asthma
    OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks# (95% CI)Relative effect (95% CI)No of Participants (studies)Quality of the evidence (GRADE)Comments
    Assumed risk: nebuliserCorresponding risk: multiple treatment of β2-agonist via spacer (chamber)
    Hospital admission110 per 100078 per 1000 (52 to 119)RR 0.71 (0.47 to 1.08)757 (9 studies)++ Low¶,§Large increases in the proportion of children admitted to hospital on spacer in comparison to nebuliser are ruled out by this 95% confidence interval.
    Duration in emergency department minThe mean duration in emergency department (minutes) in the control groups was 103 minutesThe mean duration in emergency department (minutes) in the intervention groups was 33 minutes shorter (43 minutes shorter to 24 minutes shorter)396 (3 studies)+++ Moderate¶There was a consistent direction of shortening of time in the emergency department in all three studies and, although the size of this effect varied between studies (I2 = 66%), we felt that the mean difference was important in all studies.
    Final rise in FEV1 % predControl groups: 27% predicted at baselineIntervention groups: 0.92% higher (4.96% lower to 6.79% higher)48 (2 studies)++ Low¶,§
    Mean rise in pulse rate % baselineControl groups: 7% rise from baselineIntervention groups: 5.62% lower (7.52% to 3.72% lower)670 (9 studies)+++ Moderate¶
    Number of participants developing tremor142 per 100091 per 1000 (62 to 135)RR 0.64 (0.44 to 0.95)254 (4 studies)+++ Moderate¶
    • #: The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes, the corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI); ¶: Mostly open label studies; §: Wide confidence intervals. Patient or population: children with acute asthma; settings: community or emergency department; intervention: multiple treatments with β2-agonist via spacer (chamber); comparison: multiple treatments with β2-agonist via nebuliser. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence are as follows: high quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect; moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate; low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate; very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 10 Issue 2 Table of Contents
Breathe: 10 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review
Christopher J. Cates, Elizabeth Stovold, Emma J. Welsh
Breathe Jun 2014, 10 (2) 134-144; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.003514

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
How to make sense of a Cochrane systematic review
Christopher J. Cates, Elizabeth Stovold, Emma J. Welsh
Breathe Jun 2014, 10 (2) 134-144; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.003514
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • What is the point of a systematic review?
    • The Cochrane Collaboration
    • Reading a systematic review
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Curable hypoxia in an octogenarian with an undiagnosed inherited condition
  • Case commentary
Show more Expert

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society