MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1912816158 · doi:10.3310/hta19680

The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt): a feasibility study and economic evaluation

2015· article· en· W1912816158 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Iain Bruce, Nicola Harman, Paula Williamson, Stephanie Tierney, Peter Callery, Syed Mohiuddin, Katherine Payne, Elisabeth Fenwick, Jamie J Kirkham, Kevin O’Brien

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Technology Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCleft Lip and Palate Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeMedical Research CouncilHospital for Sick ChildrenGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenUniversity of ManchesterHealing FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
Mots-clésMedicineOtitisEffusionPediatricsFamily medicineSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate are among the most common congenital malformations, with an incidence of around 1 in 700. Cleft palate (CP) results in impaired Eustachian tube function, and 90% of children with CP have otitis media with effusion (OME) histories. There are several approaches to management, including watchful waiting, the provision of hearing aids (HAs) and the insertion of ventilation tubes (VTs). However, the evidence underpinning these strategies is unclear and there is a need to determine which treatment is the most appropriate. OBJECTIVES: To identify the optimum study design, increase understanding of the impact of OME, determine the value of future research and develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future studies. DESIGN: The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt) study had four key components: (i) a survey evaluation of current clinical practice in each cleft centre; (ii) economic modelling and value of information (VOI) analysis to determine if the extent of existing decision uncertainty justifies the cost of further research; (iii) qualitative research to capture patient and parent opinion regarding willingness to participate in a trial and important outcomes; and (iv) the development of a COS for use in future effectiveness trials of OME in children with CP. SETTING: The survey was carried out by e-mail with cleft centres. The qualitative research interviews took place in patients' homes. The COS was developed with health professionals and parents using a web-based Delphi exercise and a consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians working in the UK cleft centres, and parents and patients affected by CP and identified through two cleft clinics in the UK, or through the Cleft Lip and Palate Association. RESULTS: The clinician survey revealed that care was predominantly delivered via a 'hub-and-spoke' model; there was some uncertainty about treatment strategies; it is not current practice to insert VTs at the time of palate repair; centres were in a position to take part in a future study; and the response rate to the survey was not good, representing a potential concern about future co-operation. A COS reflecting the opinions of clinicians and parents was developed, which included nine core outcomes important to both health-care professionals and parents. The qualitative research suggested that a trial would have a 25% recruitment rate, and although hearing was a key outcome, this was likely to be due to its psychosocial consequences. The VOI analysis suggested that the current uncertainty justified the costs of future research. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant uncertainty regarding the best management strategy for persistent OME in children with clefts, reflecting a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments. It is feasible, cost-effective and of significance to clinicians and parents to undertake a trial examining the effectiveness of VTs and HAs for children with CP. However, in view of concerns about recruitment rate and engagement with the clinicians, we recommend that a trial with an internal pilot is considered. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This study was part-funded by the Healing Foundation supported by the Vocational Training Charitable Trust who funded trial staff including the study co-ordinator, information systems developer, study statistician, administrator and supervisory staff.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,047
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,246

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0470,090
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,375
Écart entre enseignants0,345 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations65
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth Technology AssessmentMême sujetCleft Lip and Palate ResearchTravaux en français237 207