<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and acute otitis media in children: an overview of reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common clinical problems in childhood with peak incidence occurring in the first 2 years of life. Objectives To critically evaluate the available evidence in The Cochrane Library regarding the treatment of AOM. Methods The Cochrane Library was searched using the terms ‘otitis media’ and ‘ear infection’. Reviews focusing on the treatment of AOM in children were included. Data on patient relevant outcomes (pain, treatment failure, AOM recurrence and adverse events) were extracted by two authors. Main results Six reviews were included in this overview. The first review compared antibiotics with placebo. Antibiotics reduced pain on days 2–7 [odds ratio (OR): 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.75; Number needed to treat (NNT) = 14] but increased overall adverse events (OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.14–4.84; NNT = 7). Antibiotics also reduced the number of children with treatment failure (persistence of signs and symptoms at the end of therapy) (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27–0.60; NNT = 8), and this effect was larger in two recent randomized controlled trials which used stringent diagnostic criteria and were restricted to young children (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.16–0.34; NNT = 4). The second review addressing the length of antibiotic treatment showed that shorter courses of oral antibiotics resulted in a slightly increased likelihood of treatment failure (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.55), although trial quality was limited. In the third review, no significant differences were noted between once‐ or twice‐daily versus three times‐daily administration of amoxicillin‐based antibiotic treatment; however, the quality of the original data on which the review was based was less than optimal. The fourth review compared delayed antibiotics to immediate therapy or to no antibiotics for AOM, with no differences in pain between groups. In the fifth review, decongestants and/or antihistamines were compared with placebo. Decongestants and antihistamines provided no appreciable benefit and were associated with significant adverse events (OR: 3.74; 95% CI: 1.53, 9.16). In the sixth review, topical analgesic drops and placebo were compared. Use of analgesic drops was associated with a significant increase in pain reduction (OR: 3.07; 95% CI: 1.33, 7.05). Authors' conclusions Current evidence suggests that antibiotic treatment may be justified in young children with stringently diagnosed AOM. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".