Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25505919›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2014

Antibiotic Use in Children with Acute Respiratory or Ear Infections: Prospective Observational Comparison of Anthroposophic and Conventional Treatment under Routine Primary Care Conditions.

Harald J Hamre, Anja Glockmann, Reinhard Schwarz, David S Riley, Erik W Baars, Helmut Kiene, Gunver S Kienle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Mechanistic Evidence ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Fever: Views in Anthroposophic Medicine and Their Scientific Validity.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2016
    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

7 authors.

Harald J HamreInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, University of Witten-Herdecke, Zechenweg 6, 79111 Freiburg, Germany.
Anja GlockmannInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, University of Witten-Herdecke, Zechenweg 6, 79111 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2257-3507
Reinhard SchwarzPaediatric Practice, Quellengasse 42, 8010 Graz, Austria.
David S RileyIntegrative Medicine Institute, Overton Street, Portland, OR 97210, USA.
Erik W BaarsUniversity of Applied Sciences Leiden, Zernikedreef 11, 2333 CK Leiden, The Netherlands ; Louis Bolk Instituut, Hoofdstraat 24, 3972 LA Driebergen-Rijsenburg, The Netherlands.
Helmut KieneInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, University of Witten-Herdecke, Zechenweg 6, 79111 Freiburg, Germany.
Gunver S KienleInstitute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, University of Witten-Herdecke, Zechenweg 6, 79111 Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children with acute respiratory or ear infections (RTI/OM) are often unnecessarily prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem and antibiotic prescription for RTI/OM should be reduced. Anthroposophic treatment of RTI/OM includes anthroposophic medications, nonmedication therapy and if necessary also antibiotics. This secondary analysis from an observational study comprised 529 children <18 years from Europe (AT, DE, NL, and UK) or USA, whose caregivers had chosen to consult physicians offering anthroposophic (A-) or conventional (C-) treatment for RTI/OM. During the 28-day follow-up antibiotics were prescribed to 5.5% of A-patients and 25.6% of C-patients (P < 0.001); unadjusted odds ratio for nonprescription in A- versus C-patients 6.58 (95%-CI 3.45-12.56); after adjustment for demographics and morbidity 6.33 (3.17-12.64). Antibiotic prescription rates in recent observational studies with similar patients in similar settings, ranged from 31.0% to 84.1%. Compared to C-patients, A-patients also had much lower use of analgesics, somewhat quicker symptom resolution, and higher caregiver satisfaction. Adverse drug reactions were infrequent (2.3% in both groups) and not serious. Limitation was that results apply to children of caregivers who consult A-physicians. One cannot infer to what extent antibiotics might be avoided in children who usually receive C-treatment, if they were offered A-treatment.

Identifiers

PMID25505919
PMCPMC4251819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.