MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Xylitol for preventing acute otitis media in children up to 12 years of age

2016· review· en· W1826610031 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Azarpazhooh, Herenia P. Lawrence, Prakesh S. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineXylitolOtitisStreptococcus pneumoniaeAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPlaceboRelative riskPediatricsInternal medicineBlindingClinical trialConfidence intervalIntensive care medicineAntibioticsSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common bacterial infection among young children in the United States. There are limitations and concerns over its treatment with antibiotics and surgery and so effective preventative measures are attractive. A potential preventative measure is xylitol, a natural sugar substitute that reduces the risk of dental decay. Xylitol can reduce the adherence of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S pneumoniae) and Haemophilus influenzae (H influenzae) to nasopharyngeal cells in vitro. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of xylitol to prevent AOM in children aged up to 12 years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (to Issue 12, 2015), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2016), Embase (1974 to January 2016), CINAHL (1981 to January 2016), LILACS (1982 to January 2016), Web of Science (2011 to January 2016) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (2000 to January 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of children aged 12 years or younger where xylitol supplementation was compared with placebo or no treatment to prevent AOM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials from search results, assessed and rated study quality and extracted relevant data for inclusion in the review. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. We noted data on any adverse events of xylitol. We extracted data on relevant outcomes and estimated the effect size by calculating risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified five clinical trials that involved 3405 children for inclusion. For this 2016 update, we identified one new trial for inclusion. This trial was systematically reviewed but due to several sources of heterogeneity, was not included in the meta-analysis. The remaining four trials were of adequate methodological quality. In three RCTs that involved a total of 1826 healthy Finnish children attending daycare, there is moderate quality evidence that xylitol (in any form) can reduce the risk of AOM from 30% to around 22% compared with the control group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88). Among the reasons for dropouts, there were no significant differences in abdominal discomfort and rash between the xylitol and the control groups. Xylitol was not effective in reducing AOM among healthy children during a respiratory infection (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.53; moderate quality evidence) or among otitis-prone healthy children (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.21; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence showing that the prophylactic administration of xylitol among healthy children attending daycare centres can reduce the occurrence of AOM. There is inconclusive evidence with regard to the efficacy of xylitol in preventing AOM among children with respiratory infection, or among otitis-prone children. The meta-analysis was limited because data came from a small number of studies, and most were from the same research group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207