ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2024
Diagnostic methods and written advice for acute otitis media in primary health care.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy and management of suspected acute otitis media: A multi-continental survey of primary care physicians using tympanic membrane images in clinical cases.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of otitis media with and without a fictitious AI support among physicians in primary care and medical students.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOtomicroscopy and pneumatic methods are superior to otoscopy alone in diagnosing acute otitis media (AOM). There is a lack of knowledge regarding the use of different diagnostic methods for AOM in primary health care in Sweden and Norway.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included a questionnaire completed by general practitioners (GPs) and specialist trainees (STs/residents/registrars) working in primary care in Sweden and Norway. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the use of diagnostic methods and written advice adjusted for educational level, sex and country.
resultsOtoscopy was the most frequently used method. Sweden had greater access to the more accurate diagnostic methods. In Norway, the following methods were used to a lesser extent: pneumatic otoscopy, adjusted OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.10-0.23;
conclusionsSwedish physicians both used and had greater access to the significantly better diagnostic methods compared with Norwegian physicians while the opposite applied to the use of written information. The GPs used pneumatic otoscopy and pneumatic otomicroscopy to a greater extent than STs. Compared with 2012, the Swedish physicians now more frequently used pneumatic otoscopy.
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.