Role of honey after tonsillectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Honey reduced post-tonsillectomy pain, but its effects on awakening at night, inflammation and healing of the tonsillar fossa were controversial. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the effect of oral honey on pain, consumption of painkillers, awakening at night, healing of tonsillar fossa and adverse effects in children after tonsillectomy. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases was performed without any restriction of publication year. The end date of search was 30 June 2016. The search was supplemented by search from Google, hand search of cross-references of selected articles and reviews, and contacting the authors of different studies. The inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing the effect of honey with control on different outcomes, in children after tonsillectomy. RESULTS: Our search generated 64 studies, and eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of RCTs was poor. Compared to control, honey significantly decreased postoperative pain from day 1 to day 7 (P = 0.05 to <0.0001); consumption of painkillers from days 1 to 5 (P = 0.03 to 0.003) and on day 10 (P = 0.002); and number of awakening at night due to pain on days 2 and 4 after tonsillectomy (P = 0.0001, 0.004). The healing of tonsillar fossa was significantly greater with honey compared to control on days 3-4 (P = 0.02) and days ≥9 (P = 0.01) after tonsillectomy. The adverse effects were not significantly different between honey and control groups. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of the evidence for different outcomes varied from 'low' to 'very low'. CONCLUSIONS: Honey improved pain, requirement of painkillers and awakening at night due to pain in children after tonsillectomy. There was little improvement in healing of tonsillar fossa. The GRADE of the evidence varied from 'low' to 'very low'. A good-quality, placebo-controlled RCT of different doses and durations of administration of honey is required to evaluate its clear efficacy and safety in children after tonsillectomy.
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 | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".