The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-Analytic Review of the Risk Factors for Acute Otitis Media
Open accessAbstract
The occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) has increased steadily during the last 15 years. The possible environmental risks associated with AOM should be well identified to prevent any further increase in its occurrence. A meta-analysis of the studies evaluating the risk factors for AOM was performed. A MEDLINE search of the medical literature from 1966 to 1994 with the key words children, risk, acute otitis media, and recurrent acute otitis media was performed, and the references of the articles that were found served as the sources for the studies used in the meta-analysis. Sixty-one studies were identified. Twenty-two (36%) of these studies were accepted for the meta-analysis. Depending on the risk factor, there were two to seven different studies from which risk ratios (RRs) could be pooled. The studies were performed in six different countries. If any other member of the family had had AOM, the risk increased (RR, 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-3.72; P = .00001). The risk of AOM increased with day care outside the home (RR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.51-3.98; P = .0003) and family day care (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.19-2.13, P = .002). The risk of AOM increased with parental smoking (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33-2.06; P < .00001). Breast-feeding for at least 3 months reduced the risk of AOM (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95; P = .003). The use of a pacifier increased the risk of AOM (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; P = .008). Child care outside the home and parental smoking were the factors that most significantly increased the occurrence of AOM
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
Cites
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017 · cited 3×
“Meta-analysis is a method of quantitative summary of published data that offers the chance to reevaluate studies with small sample sizes by combining their results, thus decreasing the probability of a type II error and affording a better estimation of the true effect size of the risk factor [5].”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Moon, R. Y., TASK FORCE ON SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME, Darnall, R. A., Feldman-Winter, L., Goodstein, M. H., & Hauck, F. R. (2016) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2940 · Cited by 583
Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (2005) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1499 · Cited by 526
Xie, J., Juliao, P. C., Gilsdorf, J. R., Ghosh, D., Patel, M., & Marrs, C. F. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01331-06 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Uhari, M., Mantysaari, K., & Niemela, M.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-06-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1079-1083
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W1988434387
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Meta-Analytic Review of the Risk Factors for Acute Otitis Media. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinids/22.6.1079
- The paper
- Uhari, M., Mantysaari, K., & Niemela, M. (1996). Meta-Analytic Review of the Risk Factors for Acute Otitis Media. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/22.6.1079
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.