Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25418818›Full record

ReviewClinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery2014

Controversies in the management of acute tonsillitis: an evidence-based review.

J H Bird, T C Biggs, E V King

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Admission avoidance in tonsillitis and peritonsillar abscess: A prospective national audit during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Controversies in the management of acute tonsillitis: an evidence-based review.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J H BirdDepartment of ENT Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
T C Biggs
E V King
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBPoole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients admitted with acute tonsillitis generate a substantial workload for the National Health Service (NHS), placing huge financial pressures on an already overstretched budget. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: Due to the difficulty of accurate diagnosis and varying practices across the UK, there exist a number of controversial areas and non-standardised practice. These will be highlighted and tackled within this article. TYPE OF REVIEW AND SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature review, last performed in September 2013, searched PubMed citing variations on the areas of controversies with 'tonsillitis', 'pharyngitis' and 'pharyngotonsillitis' - from 1956 to present with language restrictions. Excluded articles included those regarding sore throat after tonsillectomy and peritonsillar abscess. EVALUATION

methodTitles and abstracts were initially screened, and full text of potentially relevant articles obtained. The bibliographies of articles were searched for relevant references. The references were then compiled and reviewed independently by two authors (JB & TB), overseen by the senior author (EK).

results(i) Diagnosis and investigation: Use of the Centor criteria is inadequate within the secondary care setting. Blood testing is unnecessary in the majority of cases where patients do not require admission, as they are unlikely to change management. (ii) Antibiotics: Antibiotics are likely to be indicated in all those presenting to secondary ENT care, with penicillin being the antibiotic of choice for first-line therapy. (iii) Corticosteroids: Moderate evidence supports the benefit of steroid administration in this patient cohort, advocating a single dose initially followed by reassessment. (iv) Analgesia: Paracetamol and NSAIDs have good evidence of action. Codeine should be used with caution in the paediatric population. (v) Reduced admission rates and early discharge: There is evidence suggesting that a trial of medical therapy prior to admission is beneficial in reducing rates of admission and length of stay.

conclusionsManagement of acute tonsillitis within a secondary care setting largely consists of anecdotal or relatively low-quality evidence. Thus, much evidence from management comes from expert opinion or practice within a primary care setting. Management across the UK can also vary greatly. An evidence-based review of best practice has been presented here, but further evidence will be required in the future examining the significance of corticosteroids and antibiotic administration in this patient cohort specifically, ensuring practice is evidence based and clinically relevant.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnalgesiaAnti-Bacterial AgentsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPatient DischargeTonsillitisUnited KingdomAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID25418818
PMCPMC7162355
OpenAlexW2167087713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.