Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Ketotifen, an oral agent, might be useful in managing children with asthma, especially in the pre-school age and in countries where medications via the inhaled route are not easily available. However, there is no clear evidence whether children with asthma benefit from Ketotifen. Objectives: The objective of the project presented here, is to provide the database for a systematic review by a search of the international literature in order to find all randomised controlled trials that could help to answer the question whether Ketotifen results in better control of asthma in children.
Methods: According to the high methodological standard of the Cochrane Collaboration we used the Collaborative Review Group search strategy in the Asthma and wheez* database to identify all relevant studies. In addition five relevant German respiratory care journals were handsearched, reference lists of each relevant trial or review article were checked to identify additional potentially relevant citations.
Results: 382 potentially relevant abstracts were found in the Asthma and wheez* database. From these abstracts 106 full text versions were checked and 12 definite relevant studies were identified. References lists of all the 106 full text versions were checked and lead to another 49 potentially relevant full text versions. These finally revealed 2 more relevant studies that could be included in a systematic review. 3 trials found in the reference lists might be included in such a review, but there are still missing relevant data from the authors. Handsearching did not reveal additional relevant studies that could be included in a systematic review on Ketotifen in asthmatic children.
Conclusions: Checking of the reference lists was helpful to identify evidence, that otherwise would have been missed and could have biased the results of a systematic review. Handsearching did not reveal additional relevant studies, but registering the identified studies in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register may help to avoid biases in reviews about other topics.
Methods: According to the high methodological standard of the Cochrane Collaboration we used the Collaborative Review Group search strategy in the Asthma and wheez* database to identify all relevant studies. In addition five relevant German respiratory care journals were handsearched, reference lists of each relevant trial or review article were checked to identify additional potentially relevant citations.
Results: 382 potentially relevant abstracts were found in the Asthma and wheez* database. From these abstracts 106 full text versions were checked and 12 definite relevant studies were identified. References lists of all the 106 full text versions were checked and lead to another 49 potentially relevant full text versions. These finally revealed 2 more relevant studies that could be included in a systematic review. 3 trials found in the reference lists might be included in such a review, but there are still missing relevant data from the authors. Handsearching did not reveal additional relevant studies that could be included in a systematic review on Ketotifen in asthmatic children.
Conclusions: Checking of the reference lists was helpful to identify evidence, that otherwise would have been missed and could have biased the results of a systematic review. Handsearching did not reveal additional relevant studies, but registering the identified studies in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register may help to avoid biases in reviews about other topics.