MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239955493 · doi:10.1002/ebch.357

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

2009· article· en· W4239955493 on OpenAlexaff
Nader Shaikh, Krystal Harvey, Jack L. Paradise, Alejandro Hoberman

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsCochraneUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryPlaceboOtitisSystematic reviewMEDLINEConfidence intervalOdds ratioMeta-analysisPediatricsAdverse effectNumber needed to treatAcute otitis mediaIncidence (geometry)Watchful waitingIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRelative riskSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background This overview critically evaluates the available evidence The Cochrane Library offers on the treatment of acute otitis media (AOM). AOM is one of the most common clinical problems in childhood with peak incidence occurring in the first two years of life. Objectives To summarize Cochrane reviews that assess the effects of treatments for AOM in children. Methods The Cochrane Library was searched using the terms ‘otitis media’ and ‘ear infection’. Those 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 Five reviews were included in this overview. In the first review, antibiotics were compared with placebo. Although it appeared from the reports reviewed that antibiotics have marginal efficacy (number needed to treat = 12; number needed to harm = 12), because the reviewed studies included mostly older children with mild AOM, the results can not be generalized to young children or to children with severe AOM. In the second review, short (&lt;7 days) and long courses of antibiotics were compared. Although the data were limited, shorter courses resulted in an increased likelihood of treatment failure [odds ratio (OR): 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 1.55]. In the third review, once‐daily administration of antibiotics was compared with two‐ or three‐times‐daily administration. Although no significant differences were noted, the quality of the original data on which the review was based was less than optimal. In the fourth review, decongestants and/or antihistamines were compared with placebo. Decongestants and antihistamines provided no appreciable benefit and were associated with significant adverse events (OR: 7.34, 95% CI: 1.67, 32.25). In the fifth review, topical analgesic drops and placebo were compared in two small studies. Use of analgesic drops was associated with significant reductions in pain level (OR: 3.07, 95% CI: 1.33, 7.05 for pain reduction of ≥ 50%). Authors' Conclusions Additional well‐designed trials in children of various age groups with AOM are needed to determine the efficacy of 1) standard‐course antibiotic treatment, 2) short‐course vs standard‐course antibiotic treatment, and 3) topical analgesia. Limited evidence suggests that the use of decongestants and/or antihistamines in children with AOM should be avoided. Copyright © 2009 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)0.005
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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