ArticleCurrent allergy and asthma reports2009
Otitis media and antihistamines.
Article in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allergy in pathogenesis of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Review
- Allergy and Otitis Media in Clinical Practice.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2020Review
- The Proposed Usage of Intranasal Steroids and Antihistamines for Otitis Media with Effusion.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
- Antihistamines for children with otitis media.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Otitis media with effusion (OME) and acute otitis media (AOM) continue to be a significant source of morbidity in the United States, as they account for more than 3.5 billion dollars in annual costs, and OME is the sixth most common reason for an emergency department visit. The efficacy of antihistamines in the treatment of OME/AOM has been thoroughly refuted in the literature during the past three decades. However, most studies to date have used first-generation antihistamines with or without decongestants. We propose that second-generation antihistamines may have increased efficacy in the treatment of OME/AOM because of their greater selectivity for histamine receptors and lack of anticholinergic activity. Further clinical trials may be warranted, as medical treatment with second-generation antihistamines, if proven more efficacious, may reduce the need for antibiotic treatment and surgical intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.