Tympanocentesis for the Management of Acute Otitis Media in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current knowledge, practice patterns, skills, and attitudes of Canadian pediatricians and family physicians regarding the role of diagnostic tympanocentesis in the management of acute otitis media in children. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A self-completion questionnaire was mailed to a random selection of 302 pediatricians and 196 family physicians practicing in hospitals and community settings across Canada in 2002. A second questionnaire was sent to those who did not respond to the first mailing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The demographic features of respondents and their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding tympanocentesis for acute otitis media were collected via a 2-page questionnaire consisting of open-ended and multiple-choice questions. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 56%. Only 4% of pediatricians and family physicians surveyed received training in tympanocentesis, and none currently perform the procedure. Higher proportions of those who learned to perform tympanocentesis graduated from medical school before 1970 and received postgraduate training outside of Canada compared with those who did not learn to perform tympanocentesis. Pediatricians were more likely than family physicians to make referrals to otolaryngologists for tympanocentesis for acute otitis media (62% vs 48%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Few Canadian pediatricians and family physicians in our survey learned to perform tympanocentesis, and none currently perform the procedure. It is not clear whether current practices for tympanocentesis in children with acute otitis media are adequate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".