Gries 2000.
Methods | A prospective, randomised, non‐blinded controlled clinical trial with blinded outcome assessors Comparison of single dose of IM dexamethasone versus oral prednisolone Randomization and allocation concealment were reported but methods were not discussed. |
|
Participants | Patients with known history of asthma who presented to the ED with mild to moderate asthma exacerbation who did not require admission on presentation Asthma was defined as recurrent coughing, wheezing, or shortness of breath responsive to corticosteroids or β₂‐agonists. Asthma exacerbation was defined as increased asthma signs and symptoms unresponsive to the patient’s routine asthma medications and additional β₂‐agonist therapy. Clinical asthma score was defined as a composite score of wheeze and cough scores ranging from 0 to 8. Reported to enrolling patients with mild‐moderate exacerbations. Unable to assess exacerbation severity based on baseline PEF Ages: enrolled patients 6 months to 7 years. Mean age of IM corticosteroid group: 38 months (SD: 18). Mean age of oral corticosteroid group: 36 months (SD: 22) Patients were excluded from study if they received IV corticosteroids on the ED initial visit. Set in United States Sex: 23 men, 9 women |
|
Interventions |
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes | Authors were not contacted. No registered protocol was identified. |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information provided on how patients were randomised. Quote (p. 299): "Once enrolled in the study, patients were randomised to receive either a single IM dose of dexamethasone acetate (Dalalone, Forest Pharmaceuticals, 16 mg/mL) or prednisone (either suspension 3 mg/mL or tablets—patient’s choice) taken orally each day for 5 days." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information on allocation concealment provided. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Non‐blinded study. Quote (p. 300‐1): "The study investigators were blinded to the patient’s treatment arm. Patients and parents were not blinded. The nurses in the paediatric clinic who administered the IM injections did not discuss the patients with the study investigators." "Investigator blinding was achieved in all but 4 patients. For 2 of these children, the nurses told an investigator that they had administered a shot, and the other 2 children disclosed what they had received (one IM Dex and one oral Pred). A second investigator, who was still blinded, completed the assessments." |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. Quote (p. 300): "The study investigators were blinded to the patient’s treatment arm" |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Study attrition provided. Excluded patients balanced between groups. Quote: (p. 300): "From September 1996 through February 1997, we approached 35 children (age range, 8 months to 7 years) and their legal guardians concerning enrolment, and all but 2 agreed to participate in the study. Sixteen children received IM Dex, and 17 were randomised to receive oral Pred. One child, a 16‐month‐old (randomised to IM Dex), was withdrawn on her second study day for treatment of a persistent cough by an emergency department physician who noted no wheezing or respiratory distress but gave her an additional IM injection of dexamethasone." |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol available. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | No source of funding provided. |