Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vacuna contra la gripe para la prevención de la otitis media aguda en lactantes y niños

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010089.pub3Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 17 octubre 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Mohd N Norhayati

    Correspondencia a: Department of Family Medicine, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Jacqueline J Ho

    Department of Paediatrics, Penang Medical College, Penang, Malaysia

  • Mohd Y Azman

    Raja Perempuan Zainab II Hospital, Kota Bharu, Malaysia

Contributions of authors

Designing the review: Mohd N Norhayati (MNN), Mohd Y Azman (MYA), and Jacqueline J Ho (JJH).
Co‐ordinating the review: MNN.
Literature search: MNN, MYA.
Quality assessment: MNN, MYA. For this update MNN, JJH.
Entering data into Review Manager 5: MNN.
Data analysis: JJH, MNN.
Data interpretation: JJH, MNN.
Writing the review: MNN, JJH, MYA.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.

  • Penang Medical College, Malaysia.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Mohd N Norhayati: none known.
Jacqueline J Ho: none known.
Mohd Y Azman: none known.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the authors of a previous protocol, Elspeth Kay, Kwong Ng, Allison Salmon, and Chris Del Mar (Kay 2005). The new authors would like to thank Elizabeth Dooley, Managing Editor of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group, for the comments and feedback during the preparation of this review. We would also like to thank Justin Clark, Information Specialist of the ARI Group, for his assistance with this review update.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Oct 17

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Review

Mohd N Norhayati, Jacqueline J Ho, Mohd Y Azman

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010089.pub3

2015 Mar 24

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Review

Mohd N Norhayati, Jacqueline J Ho, Mohd Y Azman

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010089.pub2

2012 Sep 12

Influenza vaccines for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Protocol

Mohd N Norhayati, Mohd Y Azman, Jacqueline J Ho

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010089

Differences between protocol and review

We included a subgroup analysis for otitis media episodes by season, as we think there might be a difference in the outcome for vaccine administered during the influenza and the broader respiratory season. We removed the types of influenza vaccine from our secondary outcomes, deciding this was better included as a subgroup analysis. Neither of these subgroup analyses were stated in the protocol. For this update, we did not perform the subgroup analyses for trial setting and season due to the small number of trials in the subgroups. We removed Belshe 2000 from the analyses of primary outcomes (courses of vaccine and types of vaccine) because it reported episodes per person, and there was no measure of dispersion. We did not perform a subgroup analysis for utilisation of healthcare due to the limited number of trials involved. We did not do a subgroup analysis by type of adverse event. We have reported each type of adverse event as a separate analysis.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 1 At least 1 episode of acute otitis media.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 1 At least 1 episode of acute otitis media.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 2 Acute otitis media by courses.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 2 Acute otitis media by courses.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 3 Acute otitis media by type of vaccine.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 3 Acute otitis media by type of vaccine.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 4 Courses of antibiotics.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 4 Courses of antibiotics.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 5 Fever.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 5 Fever.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 6 Rhinorrhoea.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 6 Rhinorrhoea.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 7 Pharyngitis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Influenza vaccine versus control, Outcome 7 Pharyngitis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Influenza vaccine compared to control for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Influenza vaccine compared to control for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children

Patient or population: infants and children
Setting: health care and day care
Intervention: influenza vaccine
Comparison: control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with control

Risk with influenza vaccine

At least 1 episode of acute otitis media

Study population

RR 0.84
(0.69 to 1.02)

3134
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2

The basis for the assumed risk is the mean risk in the control group across the included studies. There was moderate unexplained inconsistency across the studies. We downgraded for inconsistency. The effect estimates were all in the same direction, but there was uncertainty in the confidence of the effect estimate.

292 per 1000

245 per 1000
(201 to 298)

Courses of antibiotics

Study population

RR 0.70
(0.59 to 0.83)

1223
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
MODERATE1

Assumed risk calculated from the mean risk across the control groups of the 2 included studies

362 per 1000

254 per 1000
(214 to 301)

Fever

Study population

RR 1.15
(1.06 to 1.24)

10,615
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2,4

Assumed risk calculated from the mean risk across the control groups of the 7 included studies

174 per 1000

200 per 1000
(184 to 215)

Rhinorrhoea

Study population

RR 1.17
(1.07 to 1.29)

10,563
(6 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2,4

Assumed risk calculated from the mean risk across the control groups of the 6 included studies

424 per 1000

496 per 1000
(453 to 546)

Pharyngitis

Study population

RR 1.00
(0.80 to 1.25)

4429
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2,4

Assumed risk calculated from the mean risk across the control groups of the 3 included studies

71 per 1000

71 per 1000
(57 to 88)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

1Includes trial(s) at high risk of publication bias.
2Unexplained heterogeneity between studies.
3Data derived from a single study with uncertainty about the effect size due to poor precision.
4Includes trial(s) at high risk of attrition bias.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Influenza vaccine compared to control for preventing acute otitis media in infants and children
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Influenza vaccine versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 At least 1 episode of acute otitis media Show forest plot

4

3134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.69, 1.02]

2 Acute otitis media by courses Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 First course (1 or 2 doses)

4

3134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.69, 1.02]

2.2 Second course (1 dose)

2

1447

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.94, 1.34]

3 Acute otitis media by type of vaccine Show forest plot

4

3134

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.69, 1.02]

3.1 Trivalent cold‐adapted influenza vaccine

2

2552

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.56, 1.21]

3.2 Trivalent sub virion influenza vaccine

2

582

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.48, 1.23]

4 Courses of antibiotics Show forest plot

2

1223

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.59, 0.83]

5 Fever Show forest plot

7

10615

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.15 [1.06, 1.24]

6 Rhinorrhoea Show forest plot

6

10563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.17 [1.07, 1.29]

7 Pharyngitis Show forest plot

3

4429

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.80, 1.25]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Influenza vaccine versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión