This guideline is a revision of the clinical practice guideline, “Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis,” published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006. The guideline applies to children from 1 through 23 months of age. Other exclusions are noted. Each key action statement indicates level of evidence, benefit-harm relationship, and level of recommendation. Key action statements are as follows:

Palivizumab was licensed in June 1998 by the Food and Drug Administration for the reduction of serious lower respiratory tract infection caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children at increased risk of severe disease. Since that time, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its guidance for the use of palivizumab 4 times as additional data became available to provide a better understanding of infants and young children at greatest risk of hospitalization attributable to RSV infection. The updated recommendations in this policy statement reflect new information regarding the seasonality of RSV circulation, palivizumab pharmacokinetics, the changing incidence of bronchiolitis hospitalizations, the effect of gestational age and other risk factors on RSV hospitalization rates, the mortality of children hospitalized with RSV infection, the effect of prophylaxis on wheezing, and palivizumab-resistant RSV isolates. This policy statement updates and replaces the recommendations found in the 2012 Red Book. Pediatrics 2014;134:415-420 Policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are designed to provide updated guidance for child health care topics, with an emphasis on evidence-based recommendations whenever possible. Policy statements are reviewed at least every 3 years and updated when appropriate. In following this procedure, the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID) has undertaken a systematic review of all recent and older peer-reviewed literature relating to the burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children, focusing on publications that delineate children at greatest risk of serious RSV disease and studies that define pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. Detailed input regarding this guidance has been solicited from 21 committees, councils, sections, and advisory groups within the AAP, as well as organizations outside the AAP. Outside groups include the

Guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for the use of palivizumab prophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was first published in a policy statement in 1998. Guidance initially was based on the result from a single randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 1996–1997 describing an overall reduction in RSV hospitalization rate from 10.6% among placebo recipients to 4.8% among children who received prophylaxis. The results of a second randomized, placebo-controlled trial of children with hemodynamically significant heart disease were published in 2003 and revealed a reduction in RSV hospitalization rate from 9.7% in control subjects to 5.3% among prophylaxis recipients. Because no additional controlled trials regarding efficacy were published, AAP guidance has been updated periodically to reflect the most recent literature regarding children at greatest risk of severe disease. Since the last update in 2012, new data have become available regarding the seasonality of RSV circulation, palivizumab pharmacokinetics, the changing incidence of bronchiolitis hospitalizations, the effects of gestational age and other risk factors on RSV hospitalization rates, the mortality of children hospitalized with RSV infection, and the effect of prophylaxis on wheezing and palivizumab-resistant RSV isolates. These data enable further refinement of AAP guidance to most clearly focus on those children at greatest risk.

Thompson 1994 Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated?.

Objective Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care is recommended, but studies report slow uptake and low rates of patient follow-through after referral to specialized services. This review examined possible explanations related to the process of screening, focusing on how parents and youth are engaged and how providers evaluate and use screening results. Method Narrative synthesis following a systematic review of three databases (plus follow-up of citations, expert recommendations, and checks for multiple publications about the same study). Searching identified 1,188 titles; 186 full-text papers were reviewed. Two authors extracted data from 45 papers meeting inclusion criteria. Results Published studies report few details about how mental health screens were administered including how clinicians explain their purpose or confidentiality, or whether help was provided for language, literacy, or disability problems. Though not addressed directly in the studies reviewed, uptake and detection rates appeared to vary with means of administration. Screening framed as universal, confidential, and intended to optimize attention to patient concerns increased acceptability. Studies said little about how providers were taught to explore screen results. Screening increased referrals, but many still followed negative screens, in some cases because of parent concerns apparently not reflected by screen results but possibly stemming from screen-prompted discussions. Conclusions Little research has addressed the process of engaging patients in mental health screening in pediatric primary care or how clinicians can best use screening results. The literature does offer suggestions for better clinical practice and research that may lead to improvements in uptake and outcome.