MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2032595344 · doi:10.1002/ebch.771

<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and the Treatment of Sore Throat in Children and Adolescents: An Overview of Reviews

2011· article· en· W2032595344 sur OpenAlexaff
Michelle Foisy, Bradley J. Martin, Frank Domino, Lorne A Becker

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Établissements canadiensCochraneUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSore throatMedicineCochrane LibraryAntibioticsMedical prescriptionIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewThroatAdverse effectPharyngitisPediatricsMEDLINESurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePharmacology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sore throat is a common respiratory tract symptom responsible for 6% of children's visits to pediatricians or family physicians. Even though sore throat is usually self‐limiting, antibiotics are often prescribed in hopes of decreasing symptom length and the risk of developing sequelae. However, antibiotic over‐prescription could lead to adverse events in individuals and bacterial resistance in the community, so the efficacy and safety of antibiotics must first be established, and alternative treatment options should also be investigated. Objectives This overview of reviews aims to synthesize evidence from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment strategies (standard antibiotics, delayed antibiotics, short‐duration antibiotics and different types of antibiotics) to improve symptoms of sore throat in children and adolescents. The efficacy and safety of two other treatments, steroids and Chinese herbal medicine, are also investigated. Methods Issue 1, 2011 of the CDSR was searched for all reviews examining the treatment of sore throat and disorders which commonly have sore throat as part of their clinical presentation. We also searched for reviews examining the prevention of important sequelae of sore throat. All systematic reviews examining pharmacologic or non‐pharmacologic treatments in children were identified, and data were extracted, compiled into tables and synthesized using quantitative and qualitative methods. Main results Data pertaining to sore throat in children and adolescents were extracted from seven Cochrane reviews. Antibiotics provided only modest benefit over placebo for symptoms of sore throat and fever. Immediate versus delayed prescription of antibiotics resulted in a 58% decrease in severity of pain due to sore throat on day three (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.54), and a significant, moderate decrease in fever on day three (SMD: − 0.53; 95% CI: − 0.74, − 0.31). Most studies of macrolides, cephalosporins and carbacephem showed no significant benefit over oral penicillin for resolution of symptoms, but in two trials a short course of a cephalosporin compared to oral penicillin led to modest decreases in both sore throat (half a day; MD: − 0.50; 95% CI: − 0.78, − 0.22) and fever (seven hours; MD: − 0.30; 95% CI: − 0.45, − 0.14). Steroids compared to placebo decreased symptoms of sore throat in children with infectious mononucleosis at 12 hours (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.99) but not at any other measured time points. A higher rate of vomiting was associated with delayed antibiotics (RR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.20); vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain were associated with short‐duration antibiotics (RR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.32); and overall adverse effects were associated with macrolides (RR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.04, 4.61). Trials involving Chinese herbal medications for sore throat were of low quality and no good evidence for the use of these agents was available. Antibiotics compared to placebo were associated with lower rates of acute rheumatic fever, but the difference was not statistically significant when only pediatric data were included (RR: 0.20: 95% CI: 0.01, 4.18). One review examining the secondary prevention of rheumatic fever found that intramuscular versus oral penicillin reduced the recurrence of rheumatic fever by 92% (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.18) and significantly reduced the number of participants who developed streptococcal throat infections (RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.27; I 2 : 81%). Authors' Conclusions Evidence from the CDSR suggests that antibiotics provide only modest improvements in symptoms of sore throat in children and adolescents. If antibiotics are prescribed, macrolides are less ideal compared to other agents, and there is some evidence that a short course of a newer cephalosporin may be slightly better than a standard course of penicillin. Any potential benefit of antibiotic treatment must be weighed against the cost of treatment and the possibility of adverse effects. Children with a past history of rheumatic fever or those living in a region with a high prevalence of this condition are more likely to benefit from antibiotics than those without these risk factors. Oral corticosteroids can decrease sore throat symptoms within the first day and may be helpful for children with severe symptoms of infectious mononucleosis. There is no compelling evidence that any Chinese herbal medicine has beneficial effects for the relief of sore throat symptoms or prevention of sequelae. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,735
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,579

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,102
Tête enseignante GPT0,394
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations4
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchTravaux en français237 207