Question · asked by 1 review
Early ventilation tubes vs watchful waiting: Hearing ‐ return to normal *Ventilation tubes versus laser myringotomy (6 to 12 months ‐ medium‐term) Adjusted for non‐independence of within‐individual measurements Assumed ICC of 0.5 № of participants: 132 (2 RCTs)
- Population
- children aged 6 months to 12 years with otitis media with effusion (OME)
- Intervention
- Early ventilation tubes
- Comparison
- watchful waiting
- Outcome
- Hearing ‐ return to normal *Ventilation tubes versus laser myringotomy (6 to 12 months ‐ medium‐term) Adjusted for non‐independence of within‐individual measurements Assumed ICC of 0.5 № of participants: 132 (2 RCTs)
It is very uncertain whether early ventilation tubes changes hearing ‐ return to normal hearing Randomised by child compared with watchful waiting (treatment later if required) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early ventilation tubes vs watchful waiting (treatment later if required) Hearing ‐ return to normal hearing Randomised by child · children aged 6 months to 12 years with OME It is very uncertain whether early ventilation tubes changes hearing ‐ return to normal hearing Randomised by child compared with watchful waiting (treatment later if required) (very low certainty). Ventilation tubes (grommets) for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.94, 1.03] | Not reported | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ventilation tubes (grommets) for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.