Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to Drs Hoberman and Paradise
  1. Andrea Marmor1,2,
  2. Thomas Newman1,2
  1. 1Department of PediatricsUniversity of California, San FranciscoCA, USA
  2. 2UCSF, San Francisco, USA
  1. Correspondence to: Andrea Marmor
    MS-6E, Pediatrics San Francisco General Hospital 1001 Potrero Ave. San Francisco, CA 94110 AMarmor{at} February 2, 2012

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank Drs Hoberman and Paradise for writing to highlight areas of disagreement and for pointing out a couple of minor errors in our commentary.

Our commentary was a comparison between the paper by Hoberman, Paradise et al, and one by Tahtinen et al in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Because of space limitations, we focused only on the primary outcomes of both studies. The primary outcome of the study by Hoberman et al was symptomatic response.

In their letter, Hoberman and Paradise suggest that overall clinical response, which in their study differed more between groups but was largely based on otoscopic findings, is more important. We disagree. In assessing the magnitude of benefit of antibiotics for acute otitis media (AOM) in studies such as this one, we feel that clinicians should consider symptomatic response as the most important outcome, for three reasons: (1) shortened symptom duration is a desirable …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.