The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt): a feasibility study and economic evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Background: Cleft lip and palate are among the most common congenital malformations, with an incidence of around 1 in 700. Cleft palate (CP) results in impaired Eustachian tube function, and 90% of children with CP have otitis media with effusion (OME) histories. There are several approaches to management, including watchful waiting, the provision of hearing aids (HAs) and the insertion of ventilation tubes (VTs). However, the evidence underpinning these strategies is unclear and there is a need to determine which treatment is the most appropriate. Objectives: To identify the optimum study design, increase understanding of the impact of OME, determine the value of future research and develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future studies. Design: The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt) study had four key components: (i) a survey evaluation of current clinical practice in each cleft centre; (ii) economic modelling and value of information (VOI) analysis to determine if the extent of existing decision uncertainty justifies the cost of further research; (iii) qualitative research to capture patient and parent opinion regarding willingness to participate in a trial and important outcomes; and (iv) the development of a COS for use in future effectiveness trials of OME in children with CP. Setting: The survey was carried out by e-mail with cleft centres. The qualitative research interviews took place in patients’ homes. The COS was developed with health professionals and parents using a web-based Delphi exercise and a consensus meeting. Participants: Clinicians working in the UK cleft centres, and parents and patients affected by CP and identified through two cleft clinics in the UK, or through the Cleft Lip and Palate Association. Results: The clinician survey revealed that care was predominantly delivered via a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model; there was some uncertainty about treatment strategies; it is not current practice to insert VTs at the time of palate repair; centres were in a position to take part in a future study; and the response rate to the survey was not good, representing a potential concern about future co-operation. A COS reflecting the opinions of clinicians and parents was developed, which included nine core outcomes important to both health-care professionals and parents. The qualitative research suggested that a trial would have a 25% recruitment rate, and although hearing was a key outcome, this was likely to be due to its psychosocial consequences. The VOI analysis suggested that the current uncertainty justified the costs of future research. Conclusions: There exists significant uncertainty regarding the best management strategy for persistent OME in children with clefts, reflecting a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments. It is feasible, cost-effective and of significance to clinicians and parents to undertake a trial examining the effectiveness of VTs and HAs for children with CP. However, in view of concerns about recruitment rate and engagement with the clinicians, we recommend that a trial with an internal pilot is considered. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This study was part-funded by the Healing Foundation supported by the Vocational Training Charitable Trust who funded trial staff including the study co-ordinator, information systems developer, study statistician, administrator and supervisory staff.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These outcomes were identified as the most important in two studies that aimed to develop a core outcome set for children with OME.
“These outcomes were identified as the most important in two studies that aimed to develop a core outcome set for children with OME (Bruce 2015; Liu 2020).”
From Autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children (2023) · cites this paper as Bruce 2015
The Results report that a consensus process selected nine outcomes for a core outcome set. However, the study aimed to develop that set for children with both otitis media with effusion (OME) and cleft palate, not children with OME generally. This verdict addresses Bruce 2015 only, not the separately cited Liu 2020 study. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA core outcome set has been developed in this field.
“It is encouraging that a core outcome set has been developed in this field (Bruce 2015; Liu 2020).”
From Autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children (2023) · cites this paper as Bruce 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 151 · Cited by 65
- Authors
- Bruce, I., Harman, N., Williamson, P., Tierney, S., Callery, P., Mohiuddin, S., Payne, K., Fenwick, E., Kirkham, J., & O’Brien, K.
- Affiliations
- Royal Manchester Children's Hospital (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Oxford, UK
- The Healing Foundation Cleft and Craniofacial Clinical Research Centre, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 68
- Pages
- 1-374
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- PMC
- PMC4781293
- OpenAlex
- W1912816158
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment programme (09/167/02)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- otitis media with effusion, cleft palate, children, Eustachian tube dysfunction, tympanostomy tubes, hearing aids, expectant management, core outcome set, value of information analysis, economic evaluation, trial recruitment, patient and parent perspectives, hearing outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Cleft Palate, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delphi Technique, Feasibility Studies, Female, United Kingdom, Hearing Aids, Hearing Disorders, Humans, Infant, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Ear Ventilation, Otitis Media with Effusion, Surveys and Questionnaires, Speech Disorders, Patient Selection
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