An efficacy and safety evaluation of montelukast + fluticasone propionate vs. fluticasone propionate in the treatment of cough variant asthma in children: a meta-analysis

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of montelukast (Mon) + fluticasone propionate (Flu) versus Flu in the treatment of cough variant asthma (CVA) in children. Methods Eligible documents were selected from various databases. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate continuous variables, and categorical variables were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. Heterogeneity analysis was performed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics, followed by sensitivity analysis and publication bias evaluation. Results Nine studies were included, and Flu + Mon was found to significantly improve the total effective rate and reduce cough recurrence compared to Flu. The cough remission and disappearance times in the Mon + Flu group were significantly lower than those in the Flu group. FEV1% recovery in the Mon + Flu group was significantly better than that in the Flu group. Conclusion Mon + Flu is effective and safe for the treatment of CVA in children. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-023-02721-z.


Information sources
6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies.Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

5
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.5 Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

5,6
Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

6
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

5,6
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g.participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

5,6
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

6
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g.risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.6,7 Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g.tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).

6,7
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

6,7
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.6,7 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s).If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.

6,7
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g.subgroup analysis, meta-regression).6,7 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.6,7 Reporting bias assessment 14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).7 Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Study selection
16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

7
16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.7

Study characteristics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.7 Risk of bias in studies 18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.7

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

8,9
Results of syntheses 20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.8,9 20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted.If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity.If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.

8,9
20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.9 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.9 Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.9

Certainty of evidence
22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.9 For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

DISCUSSION
Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.