↓ Skip to main content

Xylitol for preventing acute otitis media in children up to 12 years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Xylitol for preventing acute otitis media in children up to 12 years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007095.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amir Azarpazhooh, Herenia P Lawrence, Prakeshkumar S Shah

Abstract

Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common bacterial infection among young children in the United States. There are limitations and concerns over its treatment with antibiotics and surgery and so effective preventative measures are attractive. A potential preventative measure is xylitol, a natural sugar substitute that reduces the risk of dental decay. Xylitol can reduce the adherence of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S pneumoniae) and Haemophilus influenzae (H influenzae) to nasopharyngeal cells in vitro. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. To assess the efficacy and safety of xylitol to prevent AOM in children aged up to 12 years. We searched CENTRAL (to Issue 12, 2015), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2016), Embase (1974 to January 2016), CINAHL (1981 to January 2016), LILACS (1982 to January 2016), Web of Science (2011 to January 2016) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (2000 to January 2016). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of children aged 12 years or younger where xylitol supplementation was compared with placebo or no treatment to prevent AOM. Two review authors independently selected trials from search results, assessed and rated study quality and extracted relevant data for inclusion in the review. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. We noted data on any adverse events of xylitol. We extracted data on relevant outcomes and estimated the effect size by calculating risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). We identified five clinical trials that involved 3405 children for inclusion. For this 2016 update, we identified one new trial for inclusion. This trial was systematically reviewed but due to several sources of heterogeneity, was not included in the meta-analysis. The remaining four trials were of adequate methodological quality. In three RCTs that involved a total of 1826 healthy Finnish children attending daycare, there is moderate quality evidence that xylitol (in any form) can reduce the risk of AOM from 30% to around 22% compared with the control group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88). Among the reasons for dropouts, there were no significant differences in abdominal discomfort and rash between the xylitol and the control groups. Xylitol was not effective in reducing AOM among healthy children during a respiratory infection (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.53; moderate quality evidence) or among otitis-prone healthy children (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.21; low-quality evidence). There is moderate quality evidence showing that the prophylactic administration of xylitol among healthy children attending daycare centres can reduce the occurrence of AOM. There is inconclusive evidence with regard to the efficacy of xylitol in preventing AOM among children with respiratory infection, or among otitis-prone children. The meta-analysis was limited because data came from a small number of studies, and most were from the same research group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Unspecified 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Other 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 38%
Unspecified 21 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Other 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2018.
All research outputs
#206,739
of 12,979,653 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#513
of 10,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,144
of 262,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,979,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.