1,721,081 research outputs found
Burden of RSV infections among young children in primary care: a prospective cohort study in five European countries (2021-23)
No full textBackground: The majority of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections in young children are managed in primary care, however, the disease burden in this setting remains poorly defined. Methods: We did a prospective cohort study in primary care settings in Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK during the RSV seasons of 2020-21 (UK only; from Jan 1, 2021), 2021-22, and 2022-23. Children aged younger than 5 years presenting to their general practitioner or primary care paediatrician with symptoms of an acute respiratory tract infection were eligible for RSV testing. Children who tested positive for RSV were consented and followed up for 30 days via a physician clinical report (initial primary care visit on day 1) and two parent-report questionnaires (days 14 and 30). We assessed the burden of RSV in terms of clinical course (symptoms, illness duration, and complications), health-care resource utilisation (primary care visits, emergency department visits, hospitalisation rate, and medication use), and societal impact (daycare or school absence and parental work absence) for the 30-day follow-up period. Findings: Among 3414 tested children, 1124 (32·9%; 95% CI 31·3-34·5) tested positive for RSV. Among children with data on age, RSV positivity rate was 38·9% (36·1-41·7; n=466 of 1198) in children younger than 1 year and 25·9% (24·0-27·9; n=513 of 1979) in those aged 1 to <5 years. Of the 1124 RSV-positive children, 878 (78·1%) were enrolled and had day 1 data collected (median age 11·1 months [IQR 6·0-22·0]; 446 [50·9%] boys and 431 [49·1%] girls [N=877]). RSV illness lasted a mean of 11·7 days (95% CI 11·2-12·2; n=794). At day 14 and day 30, any remaining symptoms were reported in 451 of 804 (56·1% [95% CI 52·6-59·6]) and 261 of 724 (36·0% [32·6-39·7]) children. The mean number of primary care visits per child ranged from 1·4 (95% CI 1·2-1·6; the Netherlands) to 3·0 (2·8-3·3; Spain), and was higher in children younger than 1 year (2·7 visits [2·4-2·9]) than in those aged 1 to <5 years (2·1 [1·9-2·2]). Prescribed medication use varied, from 25 of 96 children (26·0% [95% CI 17·6-36·0]; the UK) to 228 of 297 children (76·8% [71·5-81·5]; Italy), with bronchodilators and antibiotics being the most commonly prescribed medicines across all countries. Prescribed medication use was reported in 258 of 418 children aged 1 to <5 years (61·7% [56·9-66·4]) and 196 of 394 children younger than 1 year (49·7% [44·7-54·8]). Missed working days by parents due to their child's RSV illness were reported in 340 of 744 cases (45·7% [42·1-49·4]); the mean number of missed workdays ranged from 1·3 days (95% CI 0·5-2·2) in Spain to 4·1 days (3·3-5·0) in Belgium. Interpretation: RSV infections in children younger than 5 years in primary care are associated with substantial symptomatology, health-care utilisation, and parental work absence. Notable differences in RSV burden existed across countries, likely due to differences in primary health-care systems, clinical practice, and health-care-seeking behaviour. This study emphasises the importance of considering country-specific primary care burden estimates when considering the implementation of RSV immunisations programmes. Funding: Sanofi and AstraZeneca
Topical or oral antibiotics in childhood acute otitis media and ear discharge: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
No full textBackground: current guidance suggests oral antibiotics can be considered for children with acute otitis media (AOM) and ear discharge, but there is an absence of evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops.Aim: to establish whether antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops are non-inferior to oral antibiotics in children with AOM and ear discharge.Design and setting: open randomised controlled non-inferiority trial set in Dutch primary care.Methods: children were randomised to hydrocortisone-bacitracin-colistin eardrops (five drops, three times per day in the discharging ear(s)) or amoxicillin suspension (50 mg per kilogram of body weight per day, divided over three doses administered orally) for 7 days. Primary outcome was proportion of children with resolution of ear pain and fever at day 3.Results: between December 2017 and March 2023, 58 of a planned 350 children were recruited due to slow accrual for various reasons. Children assigned to eardrops (n=26) had lower resolution rates of ear pain and fever at 3 days compared to those receiving oral antibiotics (n=31): 42% vs 65%; adjusted risk difference 20.3%, 95% confidence interval -5.3% to 41.9%), longer parent-reported ear discharge (6 vs 3 days; p =0.04), and slightly higher mean ear pain scores (Likert scale 0-6) over days 1-3 (2.1 vs 1.4, p=0.02), but received fewer oral antibiotic courses in three months (11 for 25 children vs 33 for 30 children), and had less GI upset and rash (12% vs 32% and 8% vs 16%, respectively).Conclusion: early termination stopped us from determining non-inferiority of antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops. Our limited data, requiring confirmation, suggest that oral antibiotics may be more effective than antibiotic-corticosteroid eardrops in resolving symptoms and shortening the duration of ear discharge
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children
No full textBackground: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common childhood infectious diseases and a significant reason for antibiotic prescriptions in children worldwide. Pain from middle ear infection and pressure behind the eardrum is the key symptom of AOM. Ear pain is central to children's and parents' experience of the illness. Because antibiotics provide only marginal benefits, analgesic treatment including paracetamol (acetaminophen) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is regarded as the cornerstone of AOM management in children.Objectives: Our primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol (acetaminophen) or NSAIDs, alone or combined, compared with placebo or no treatment in relieving pain in children with AOM. Our secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol in children with AOM.Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 7, July 2016; MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to August 2016), Embase (from 1947 to August 2016), CINAHL (from 1981 to August 2016), LILACS (from 1982 to August 2016) and Web of Science (from 1955 to August 2016) for published trials. We screened reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional trials. We searched WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) for completed and ongoing trials (search date 19 August 2016).Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for pain relief in children with AOM. We also included trials of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, for children with fever or upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) if we were able to extract subgroup data on pain relief in children with AOM either directly or after obtaining additional data from study authors.Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality of the included trials and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome of interest.Main results: We included three RCTs (327 children) which were assessed at low to moderate risk of bias.One RCT included 219 children with AOM, and used a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design to compare paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus placebo. All children also received antibiotics and those with fever > 39 °C could have received paracetamol (30 mg to 60 mg) additionally to the studied treatments.Another RCT involved 156 febrile children (26 of whom had AOM). The study design was a three-arm, parallel group, double-blind design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol.The third RCT included 889 children with respiratory tract infections (82 of whom had AOM). This study applied a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial, open-label design and compared paracetamol versus ibuprofen versus ibuprofen plus paracetamol. Study participants were randomised to one of the three treatment groups as well as two dosing groups (regular versus as required) and two steam inhalation groups (steam versus no steam).Authors of two RCTs provided crude subgroup data on children with AOM. We used data from the remaining trial to inform comparison of paracetamol versus placebo (148 children) and ibuprofen versus placebo (146 children) assessments. Data from all included RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen versus paracetamol (183 children); data from the two RCTs informed comparison of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone (71 children).We found evidence, albeit of low quality, that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies were more effective than placebo in relieving pain at 48 hours (paracetamol versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 10% versus 25%, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 7; ibuprofen versus placebo: proportion of children with pain 7% versus 25%, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Very low quality evidence suggested that adverse events did not significantly differ between children treated with either paracetamol, ibuprofen or placebo.We found insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving ear pain at 24 hours (2 RCTs, 39 children; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; very low quality evidence), 48 to 72 hours (3 RCTs, 183 children; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; low quality evidence) and four to seven days (2 RCTs, 38 children; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.23; very low quality evidence).Data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone came from two RCTs that provided crude subgroup data for 71 children with AOM. The small sample provided imprecise effect estimates and we were consequently unable to draw any firm conclusions (very low quality evidence).Authors' conclusions: Despite explicit guideline recommendations on its use, current evidence on the effectiveness of paracetamol or NSAIDs, alone or combined, in relieving pain in children with AOM is limited. Low quality evidence indicates that both paracetamol and ibuprofen as monotherapies are more effective than placebo in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM. There is insufficient evidence of a difference between ibuprofen and paracetamol in relieving short-term ear pain in children with AOM, whereas data on the effectiveness of ibuprofen plus paracetamol versus paracetamol alone were insufficient to draw any firm conclusions. Further research is needed to provide insights into the role of ibuprofen as adjunct to paracetamol, and other analgesics such as anaesthetic eardrops, for children with AOM.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Impact of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination on acute otitis media incidence and severity in young children
No full textFrom 2000 onwards, national childhood pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV) has been introduced across the world to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and childhood pneumonia. Because Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) is also one of the most common pathogens causing acute middle ear infections (acute otitis media; AOM), the preventive effects of PCV may be much more wide ranging: AOM is among the commonest childhood infections and a leading cause of antibiotic prescribing, specialist referrals and ENT surgery in children. Early and dense colonisation of the nasopharynx with S. pneumoniae as well as pneumococcal AOM occurring in early life (early life AOM) have been associated with an increased risk for subsequent and more complex AOM episodes caused by nonvaccine serotypes and other otopathogens. This has led to the hypothesis that by reducing or eliminating nasopharyngeal colonisation of S. pneumoniae and preventing early life AOM by PCV in infancy, the pathogenic pathway of middle-ear mucosal damage, biofilm formation and the occurrence of chronic/recurrent otitis media can be prevented. PCVs have, however, also been associated with a phenomenon called ‘replacement’, which is a shift in distribution of potential pathogenic bacteria in the nasopharynx from pneumococcal strains included in the vaccine (vaccine serotypes) towards nonvaccine pneumococcal serotypes and other bacteria. This phenomenon could erode the ‘net benefit’ of PCVs on overall AOM and therefore ongoing monitoring of the impact of PCVs on AOM incidence and severity is warranted. Recent and accurate estimates on the impact of PCV on childhood AOM are of utmost importance since cost-effectiveness of PCV is also driven by their potential capacity to prevent AOM. Using routinely collected longitudinal electronic health records and health insurance data of children pre and post introduction of the 7-valent PCV (PCV7) and the 10-valent PCV (PCV10) in the Dutch National Immunisation Programme (NIP), this thesis aims to provide these important estimates
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
