Should children be screened to undergo early treatment for otitis media with effusion? A systematic review of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME) is the most common cause of acquired hearing loss in childhood and has been associated with delayed language development and behavioural problems. Some have argued that children should be screened and treated early if found to have clinically important OME. The aim of this review was to assess evidence from randomized controlled trials about the effectiveness of screening and treating children with clinically important OME in the first 4 years of their life. The primary outcome was language development. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE and reference lists of all included studies in February 2003. We also contacted the first authors of the studies included in this review. Search terms included otitis media; otitis media with effusion; glue ear; OME; screen; children; treatment; language; and behaviour. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed by at least two of us for each study independently, using methods described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. RESULTS: From the three included randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions among children with OME identified through screening, we found no evidence of clinically important benefit in language development. CONCLUSIONS: The identified randomized trials do not show an important benefit on language development from screening the general population of asymptomatic children in the first 4 years of life to undergo early treatment for OME. Screening asymptomatic children in the first 4 years of life for OME is not recommended.
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 | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".