High‐dose rhGH vs standard‐dose rhGH: Number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations
- Population
- children and young adults with CF
- Intervention
- High‐dose rhGH
- Comparison
- standard‐dose rhGH
- Outcome
- Number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations
High‐dose rhGH showed no clear difference in number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations compared with standard‐dose rhGH (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
High‐dose rhGH vs standard‐dose rhGH Number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations · children and young adults with CF High‐dose rhGH showed no clear difference in number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations compared with standard‐dose rhGH (low certainty). Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.28 [0.52, 3.18] | 1 study · 42 participants | Low |
High‐dose rhGH vs standard‐dose rhGH Number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations · children and young adults with CF High‐dose rhGH showed no clear difference in number of pulmonary exacerbations or hospitalisations compared with standard‐dose rhGH (low certainty). Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008901.PUB4, superseded | RR 1.28 [0.52, 3.18] | 1 study · 42 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recombinant growth hormone therapy for cystic fibrosis in children and young adults 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- High‐dose rhGH vs placebo · children and young adults with CF · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.