Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28372529›Full record

ReviewOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2017

Panel 4: Report of the Microbiology Panel.

Stephen J Barenkamp, Tasnee Chonmaitree, Anders P Hakansson, Terho Heikkinen, Samantha King, Johanna Nokso-Koivisto, Laura A Novotny, Janak A Patel, Melinda Pettigrew, W Edward Swords

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephen J Barenkamp1 Department of Pediatrics, St Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Tasnee Chonmaitree2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Anders P Hakansson3 Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden.
Terho Heikkinen4 Department of Pediatrics, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Samantha King5 The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Johanna Nokso-Koivisto6 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Laura A Novotny5 The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Janak A Patel2 Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Melinda Pettigrew7 Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
W Edward Swords8 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Nationwide Children's Hospital · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USLund University · SESaint Louis University · USTurku University Hospital · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FIWake Forest University · USYale University · US

Funding

Quorum signal eavesdropping by Moraxella catarrhalisR01DC012205 · NIDCD · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SWORDS, WILLIAM E · 2012 to 2016
$1.6M
Development of a vaccine for prevention of Haemophilus influenzae otitis mediaR01AI081887 · NIAID · SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY · PI BARENKAMP, STEPHEN J. · 2011 to 2014
$1.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI081887NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To perform a comprehensive review of the literature from July 2011 until June 2015 on the virology and bacteriology of otitis media in children. Data Sources PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine. Review Methods Two subpanels comprising experts in the virology and bacteriology of otitis media were created. Each panel reviewed the relevant literature in the fields of virology and bacteriology and generated draft reviews. These initial reviews were distributed to all panel members prior to meeting together at the Post-symposium Research Conference of the 18th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Otitis Media, National Harbor, Maryland, in June 2015. A final draft was created, circulated, and approved by all panel members. Conclusions Excellent progress has been made in the past 4 years in advancing our understanding of the microbiology of otitis media. Numerous advances were made in basic laboratory studies, in animal models of otitis media, in better understanding the epidemiology of disease, and in clinical practice. Implications for Practice (1) Many viruses cause acute otitis media without bacterial coinfection, and such cases do not require antibiotic treatment. (2) When respiratory syncytial virus, metapneumovirus, and influenza virus peak in the community, practitioners can expect to see an increase in clinical otitis media cases. (3) Biomarkers that predict which children with upper respiratory tract infections will develop otitis media may be available in the future. (4) Compounds that target newly identified bacterial virulence determinants may be available as future treatment options for children with otitis media.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicHumansOtitis Mediabacteriologymicrobiologyotitis mediavirology

Identifiers

PMID28372529
PMCPMC5490388
OpenAlexW2604145379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.