The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Use of antibiotics in preventing recurrent acute otitis media and in treating otitis media with effusion. A meta-analytic attempt to resolve the brouhaha
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of antibiotics for prophylaxis of recurrent otitis media and treatment of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE from 1966 through April 1993, textbooks, Current Contents, and bibliographies of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: Thirty-three studies initially identified were reviewed by three blinded reviewers assessing study quality and suitability for inclusion. Twenty-seven met inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted quantitative data and calculated rate differences (RDs) using tympanometry as the preferred outcome measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine studies of antibiotic prophylaxis of recurrent otitis media with 958 subjects had an RD of 0.11 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.03 to 0.19) favoring antibiotic treatment. Twelve studies of short-term patient outcomes of OME with 1697 subjects had an RD favoring antibiotics of 0.16 (95% Cl, 0.03 to 0.29), while eight studies using the ear as the outcome measure with 2052 ears studied had an RD of 0.25 (95% Cl, 0.10 to 0.40). No significant difference was shown between placebo and antibiotics (RD, 0.06; 95% Cl, -0.03 to 0.14) in the eight studies of longer-term outcome of OME. Subgroup analyses by antibiotic grouping, duration of treatment, and duration of disease did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics appear to have beneficial but limited effect on recurrent otitis media and short-term resolution of OME. Longer-term benefit for OME has not been shown. The findings are limited by the failure of most studies to consider potential confounders and by inability to identify groups of patients most likely to benefit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution
(2013) · doi:10.1515/9781400846184 · Cited by 1,183
Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity
Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1461 · Cited by 809
Rovers, M. M., Schilder, A. G., Zielhuis, G. A., & Rosenfeld, R. M. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15495-0 · Cited by 486
Natural history of untreated otitis media
Rosenfeld, R. M., & Kay, D. (2003) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1097/00005537-200310000-00004 · Cited by 428
Simpson, S. A., Lewis, R., van der Voort, J., & Butler, C. C. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001935.pub3 · Cited by 184
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, R. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1993-09-15
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1344-1351
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4246362823
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of antibiotics in preventing recurrent acute otitis media and in treating otitis media with effusion. A meta-analytic attempt to resolve the brouhaha. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.11.1344
- The paper
- Williams, R. L. (1993). Use of antibiotics in preventing recurrent acute otitis media and in treating otitis media with effusion. A meta-analytic attempt to resolve the brouhaha. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.11.1344
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.