MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antihistamines and/or decongestants for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

2006· reference-entry· en· W4235430377 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Griffin, Cheryl A. Flynn, RE Bailey, Jennifer K. Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecongestantMedicineOtitisRandomized controlled trialNasal decongestantCochrane LibraryAntihistamineSystematic reviewMeta-analysisMEDLINESurgeryInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME) is common and may cause hearing loss with associated developmental delay. Treatment remains controversial. The effectiveness of antihistamines, decongestants and antihistamine/decongestant combinations in promoting the resolution of effusions has been assessed by randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether antihistamine, decongestant, or combination therapy is effective in treating children who present with OME. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), MEDLINE (1951 to 2006) and a gray literature database were searched using a search strategy created by an experienced medical librarian. The date of the last search was March 2006. Reference lists from included studies and relevant reviews were searched by hand; pharmaceutical manufacturers of antihistamines and decongestants and first authors of included studies were contacted to identify other potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines, decongestants or antihistamine/decongestant combinations as treatment for OME in children were selected. We excluded trials that randomized on the basis of acute otitis media (AOM) even though OME was also studied in follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the published reports by two authors independently using standardized data extraction forms and methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two authors. Dichotomous results were expressed as a relative risk with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model when homogeneous and a random-effects model when heterogeneous. Nearly all outcomes analysed were homogeneous. Continuous results were discussed qualitatively. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software. MAIN RESULTS: No statistical or clinical benefit was found for any of the interventions or outcomes studied. However, treated study subjects experienced 11% more side effects than untreated subjects (number needed to treat to harm = 9). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because the pooled data demonstrate no benefit and some harm from the use of antihistamines or decongestants alone or in combination in the management of OME, we recommend against their use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207