Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec 12;2012(12):CD002308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002308.pub2

Singhi 1999.

Methods Design: randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study
 Method of randomisation: not described
 Concealment: identical drug packages, but concealment not described
Participants Eligible: unclear; convenience sample
 Randomised: 60/60
 Completed: 60/60
 Age (mean (SD)) (years): budesonide 7.8 (2.5), placebo 8.1 (2.9)
 Sex (M/F): budesonide 19/11, placebo 20/10
 Asthma diagnosis: at least 1 prior attack of asthma within the past 6 months
 Major exclusions: severe asthma; patients who had received corticosteroids in the preceding 72 h; and those with pneumonia, pertussis, measles, suspected foreign body, or any other chronic disease
 Baseline PEF mean (SD) (%): budesonide group 55 (26), placebo group 53 (20)
Interventions Setting: ED at a Children's Hospital in India
 Intervention 1: 400 μg budesonide x 3 doses through MDI and spacer
 Intervention 2: placebo through MDI and spacer
 Both groups received nebulised salbutamol 0.15 mg/kg every 30 min x 3 doses then every 30 min as needed, and supplemental oxygen. If there was an inadequate response, co‐interventions such as extra doses of beta2‐agonists, theophylline or corticosteroids were given while blinding was maintained
Outcomes Change in RR, oxygen saturation, % predicted PEF (in those who could perform it), respiratory distress score, and respiratory distress grade (mild, moderate, severe)
Notes New reference in 2003. The author was not contacted
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of random sequence generation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Trial reported as double blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Blinding of study personnel responsible for outcome assessment indicates the risk of detection bias would be low
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No indication of patients being withdrawn from the trial but baseline PEF was available for only 28 in the intervention group and 28 patients in the control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No apparent indication of reporting bias