MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981810953 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1839

<i>The Cochrane Library</i> and acute otitis media in children: an overview of reviews

2012· article· en· W1981810953 on OpenAlexaff
Marta Oleszczuk, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Denise Thomson, Nader Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsCochraneUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsMedicineNumber needed to treatCochrane LibraryPlaceboAdverse effectConfidence intervalOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialOtitisInternal medicineMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)AntibioticsRelative riskPediatricsIntensive care medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 &amp; 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207