Topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations

Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Tympanoplasty: A Prospective Randomised Study

Aim

To compare endoscopic versus microscopic method for tympanoplasty in terms of Graft uptake and hearing outcome.

Material and methods

A randomized prospective observational study was done. 60 patients who came to ENT outpatient of tertiary care teaching hospital requiring operative intervention for inactive mucosal chronic otitis media. Randomization was done and patients divided into two groups with Group A undergoing endoscopic tympanoplasty and Group B undergoing microscopic tympanoplasty. Post operative graft uptake and hearing improvement were compared between both groups. Intraoperatively visualization of middle ear structures, surgeon's comfort, duration of surgery, post operative pain, giddiness was compared. in both the groups.

Results

Total 60 patients got randomly divided in the two groups. There was no difference in terms post op graft success rate and post operative hearing improvement in both the groups Intra operative visualization of middle ear structures better in the endoscopic group and also the surgical time was significantly less in endoscopic group.

Conclusion

On comparing endoscopic versus microscopic tympanoplasty in patients of mucosal chronic otitis media, success rate in terms of graft acceptance and hearing improvement was equal between both groups. However, visualisation of middle ear structures was better in endoscopic method. Operating time was shorter in endoscopic tympanoplasty.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-024-04585-z.

Local Delivery of Therapeutics to the Cochlea Using Nanoparticles and Other Biomaterials

Hearing loss negatively impacts the well-being of millions of people worldwide. Systemic delivery of ototherapeutics has limited efficacy due to severe systemic side effects and the presence of the blood-labyrinth barrier that selectively limits or enables transfer of molecules between plasma and inner ear tissues and fluids. Local drug delivery into the middle and inner ear would be preferable for many newly emerging classes of drugs. Although the cochlea is a challenging target for drug delivery, recent technologies could provide a safe and efficacious delivery of ototherapeutics. Local drug delivery routes include topical delivery via the external auditory meatus, retroauricular, transtympanic, and intracochlear delivery. Many new drug delivery systems specifically for the inner ear are under development or undergoing clinical studies. Future studies into these systems may provide a means for extended delivery of drugs to preserve or restore hearing in patients with hearing disorders. This review outlines the anatomy of the (inner) ear, describes the various local delivery systems and routes, and various quantification methodologies to determine the pharmacokinetics of the drugs in the inner ear.

Topical antibiotics with steroids for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antibiotics act to kill or inhibit the growth of micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as steroids, antiseptics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in combined preparations with steroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding a topical steroid to topical antibiotics in the treatment of people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 16 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving participants (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any combination of a topical antibiotic agent(s) of any class and a topical corticosteroid (steroid) of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. The two main comparisons were topical antibiotic and steroid compared to a) placebo or no intervention and b) another topical antibiotic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks and after four weeks; health-related quality of life; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies addressing 11 treatment comparisons. A total of 1901 participants were included, with one study (40 ears) not reporting the number of participants recruited, which we therefore could not account for. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The main comparisons were: 1. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus placebo or no treatment Three studies (210 participants) compared a topical antibiotic-steroid to saline or no treatment. Resolution of discharge was not reported at between one to two weeks. One study (50 'high-risk' children) reported results at more than four weeks by ear and we could not adjust the results to by person. The study reported that 58% (of 41 ears) resolved with topical antibiotics compared with 50% (of 26 ears) with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (123 participants) noted minor side effects in 16% of participants in both the intervention and placebo groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (123 participants) reported no change in bone-conduction hearing thresholds and reported no difference in tinnitus or balance problems between groups (very low-certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) reported serious complications, but it was not clear which group these patients were from, or whether the complications occurred pre- or post-treatment. One study (123 participants) reported that no side effects occurred in any participants (very low-certainty evidence). 2. Topical antibiotics with steroids versus topical antibiotics (same antibiotics) only Four studies (475 participants) were included in this comparison. Three studies (340 participants) compared topical antibiotic-steroid combinations to topical antibiotics alone. The evidence suggests little or no difference in resolution of discharge at one to two weeks: 82.7% versus 76.6% (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.21; 335 participants; 3 studies (4 study arms); low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of discharge after four weeks were reported. One study (110 participants) reported local itchiness but as there was only one episode in each group it is uncertain whether there is a difference (very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (395 participants) investigated suspected ototoxicity but it was not possible to determine whether there were differences between the groups for this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported serious complications. 3. Topical antibiotics with steroids compared to topical antibiotics alone (different antibiotics) Nine studies (981 participants plus 40 ears) evaluated a range of comparisons of topical non-quinolone antibiotic-steroid combinations versus topical quinolone antibiotics alone. Resolution of discharge may be greater with quinolone topical antibiotics alone at between one to two weeks compared with non-quinolone topical antibiotics with steroids: 82.1% versus 63.2% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 7 studies; 903 participants, low-certainty evidence). Results for resolution of ear discharge after four weeks were not reported. One study (52 participants) reported usable data on ear pain, two studies (419 participants) reported hearing outcomes and one study (52 participants) reported balance problems. It was not possible to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for these outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (149 participants) reported no serious complications (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effectiveness of topical antibiotics with steroids in improving the resolution of ear discharge in patients with CSOM because of the limited amount of low-certainty evidence available. Amongst this uncertainty, we found no evidence that the addition of steroids to topical antibiotics affects the resolution of ear discharge. There is also low-certainty evidence that some types of topical antibiotics (without steroids) may be better than topical antibiotic/steroid combinations in improving resolution of discharge. There is also uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of different types of antibiotics; it is not possible to determine with any certainty whether or not quinolones are better or worse than aminoglycosides. These two groups of compounds have different adverse effect profiles, but there is insufficient evidence from the included studies to make any comment about these. In general, adverse effects were poorly reported.

Topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Topical antiseptics, one of the possible treatments for CSOM, inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antiseptics can be used alone or in addition to other treatments for CSOM, such as antibiotics or ear cleaning (aural toileting). Antiseptics or their application can cause irritation of the skin of the outer ear, manifesting as discomfort, pain or itching. Some antiseptics (such as alcohol) may have the potential to be toxic to the inner ear (ototoxicity), with a possible increased risk of causing sensorineural hearing loss, dizziness or tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where the ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The interventions were any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent of any class, applied directly into the ear canal as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two main comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) placebo or no intervention; and b) another topical antiseptic (e.g. topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B). Within each comparison we separated studies where both groups of patients had received topical antiseptics a) alone or with aural toileting and b) on top of antibiotic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included. It was not possible to calculate the total number of participants as two studies only provided the number of ears included in the study. A. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus placebo or no treatment (all patients had aural toileting) Three studies compared topical antiseptics with no treatment, with one study reporting results we could use (254 children; cluster-RCT). This compared the instillation of boric acid in alcohol drops versus no ear drops for one month (both arms used daily dry mopping). We made adjustments to the data to account for the intra-cluster correlation. The very low certainty of the evidence means it is uncertain whether or not treatment with an antiseptic leads to an increase in resolution of ear discharge at both four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.16; 174 participants) and at three to four months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.47; 180 participants). This study narratively described no differences in suspected ototoxicity or hearing outcomes between the arms (very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported results for health-related quality of life, adverse effects or serious complications. B. Topical antiseptic A versus topical antiseptic B Two studies compared different antiseptics but only one (93 participants), comparing a single instillation of boric acid powder with daily acetic acid ear drops, provided any information for this comparison. The very low certainty of the evidence means that it is uncertain whether more patients had resolution of ear discharge with boric acid powder compared to acetic acid at four weeks (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.53; 93 participants), or whether there was a difference between the arms with respect to ear discomfort due to the low number of reported events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.81; 93 participants). Narratively, the study reported no difference in hearing outcomes between the groups. None of the included studies reported any of the other primary or secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to paucity of the evidence and the very low certainty of that which is available the effectiveness and safety profile of antiseptics in the treatment of CSOM is uncertain.

Antibiotics versus topical antiseptics for chronic suppurative otitis media

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Antibiotics and antiseptics kill or inhibit the micro-organisms that may be responsible for the infection. Antibiotics can be applied topically or administered systemically via the oral or injection route. Antiseptics are always directly applied to the ear (topically).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antibiotics versus antiseptics for people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 4, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least a one-week follow-up involving patients (adults and children) who had chronic ear discharge of unknown cause or CSOM, where ear discharge had continued for more than two weeks. The intervention was any single, or combination of, antibiotic agent, whether applied topically (without steroids) or systemically. The comparison was any single, or combination of, topical antiseptic agent, applied as ear drops, powders or irrigations, or as part of an aural toileting procedure. Two comparisons were topical antiseptics compared to: a) topical antibiotics or b) systemic antibiotics. Within each comparison we separated where both groups of patients had received topical antibiotic a) alone or with aural toilet and b) on top of background treatment (such as systemic antibiotics).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not), measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks; health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia) or discomfort or local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications and ototoxicity measured in several ways.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven studies (935 participants) across four comparisons with antibiotics compared against acetic acid, aluminium acetate, boric acid and povidone-iodine. None of the included studies reported the outcomes of quality of life or serious complications. A. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones or aminoglycosides) It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge with acetic acid compared with aminoglycosides at one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.08; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. It was very uncertain if there was more ear pain, discomfort or local irritation with acetic acid or topical antibiotics due to the low numbers of participants reporting events (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.34; 2 RCTs; 189 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No differences between groups were reported narratively for hearing (quinolones) or suspected ototoxicity (aminoglycosides) (very low-certainty evidence). B. Topical antiseptic (aluminium acetate) versus topical antibiotics No results for the one study comparing topical antibiotics with aluminium acetate could be used in the review. C. Topical antiseptic (boric acid) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported more participants with resolution of ear discharge when using topical antibiotics (quinolones) compared with boric acid ear drops at between one to two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.92; 1 study; 409 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that one additional person will have resolution of ear discharge for every five people receiving topical antibiotics (compared with boric acid) at two weeks. No study reported results for ear discharge after four weeks. There was a bigger improvement in hearing in the topical antibiotic group compared to the topical antiseptic group (mean difference (MD) 2.79 decibels (dB), 95% CI 0.48 to 5.10; 1 study; 390 participants; low-certainty evidence) but this difference may not be clinically significant. There may be more ear pain, discomfort or irritation with boric acid compared with quinolones (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.98; 2 studies; 510 participants; low-certainty evidence). Suspected ototoxicity was not reported. D. Topical antiseptic (povidone-iodine) versus topical antibiotics (quinolones) It is uncertain if there is a difference between quinolones and povidone-iodine with respect to resolution of ear discharge at one to two weeks (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported qualitatively that there were no differences between the groups for hearing and no patients developed ototoxic effects (very low-certainty evidence). No results for resolution of ear discharge beyond four weeks, or ear pain, discomfort or irritation, were reported. E. Topical antiseptic (acetic acid) + aural toileting versus topical + systemic antibiotics (quinolones) One study reported that participants receiving topical and oral antibiotics had less resolution of ear discharge compared with acetic acid ear drops and aural toileting (suction clearance every two days) at one month (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 100 participants). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge at between one to two weeks, ear pain, discomfort or irritation, hearing or suspected ototoxicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of CSOM with topical antibiotics (quinolones) probably results in an increase in resolution of ear discharge compared with boric acid at up to two weeks. There was limited evidence for the efficacy of other topical antibiotics or topical antiseptics and so we are unable to draw conclusions. Adverse events were not well reported.

A Rare Case of Odontogenic Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media

Common causes of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) include persistence of acute otitis media, cholesteatoma, and eustachian tube dysfunction. We describe a patient who presented with CSOM of several years duration refractory to medical management. Ultimately, a dental abscess was found on computed tomography (CT) to be the source of concurrent ipsilateral maxillary sinusitis and mastoiditis. Extraction of the molar abscess resulted in complete resolution of her CSOM and need to be on antibiotics. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an odontogenic cause of chronic suppurative otitis media.

Understanding the aetiology and resolution of chronic otitis media from animal and human studies

Inflammation of the middle ear, known clinically as chronic otitis media, presents in different forms, such as chronic otitis media with effusion (COME; glue ear) and chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). These are highly prevalent diseases, especially in childhood, and lead to significant morbidity worldwide. However, much remains unclear about this disease, including its aetiology, initiation and perpetuation, and the relative roles of mucosal and leukocyte biology, pathogens, and Eustachian tube function. Chronic otitis media is commonly modelled in mice but most existing models only partially mimic human disease and many are syndromic. Nevertheless, these models have provided insights into potential disease mechanisms, and have implicated altered immune signalling, mucociliary function and Eustachian tube function as potential predisposing mechanisms. Clinical studies of chronic otitis media have yet to implicate a particular molecular pathway or mechanism, and current human genetic studies are underpowered. We also do not fully understand how existing interventions, such as tympanic membrane repair, work, nor how chronic otitis media spontaneously resolves. This Clinical Puzzle article describes our current knowledge of chronic otitis media and the existing research models for this condition. It also identifies unanswered questions about its pathogenesis and treatment, with the goal of advancing our understanding of this disease to aid the development of novel therapeutic interventions.

Summary: Chronic middle ear inflammation is a common disease. Animal models, and in particular mouse models, have been used to elucidate some potential mechanisms, including dysfunction in immune signalling, mucociliary function or Eustachian tube function.

Estimating the contribution of studies in network meta-analysis: paths, flows and streams

In network meta-analysis, it is important to assess the influence of the limitations or other characteristics of individual studies on the estimates obtained from the network. The proportion contribution matrix, which shows how much each direct treatment effect contributes to each treatment effect estimate from network meta-analysis, is crucial in this context. We use ideas from graph theory to derive the proportion that is contributed by each direct treatment effect. We start with the 'projection' matrix in a two-step network meta-analysis model, called the H matrix, which is analogous to the hat matrix in a linear regression model. We develop a method to translate H entries to proportion contributions based on the observation that the rows of H  can be interpreted as flow networks, where a stream is defined as the composition of a path and its associated flow. We present an algorithm that identifies the flow of evidence in each path and decomposes it into direct comparisons. To illustrate the methodology, we use two published networks of interventions. The first compares no treatment, quinolone antibiotics, non-quinolone antibiotics and antiseptics for underlying eardrum perforations and the second compares 14 antimanic drugs. We believe that this approach is a useful and novel addition to network meta-analysis methodology, which allows the consistent derivation of the proportion contributions of direct evidence from individual studies to network treatment effects.

Estimating the contribution of studies in network meta-analysis: paths, flows and streams

In network meta-analysis, it is important to assess the influence of the limitations or other characteristics of individual studies on the estimates obtained from the network. The proportion contribution matrix, which shows how much each direct treatment effect contributes to each treatment effect estimate from network meta-analysis, is crucial in this context. We use ideas from graph theory to derive the proportion that is contributed by each direct treatment effect. We start with the ‘projection’ matrix in a two-step network meta-analysis model, called the H matrix, which is analogous to the hat matrix in a linear regression model. We develop a method to translate H entries to proportion contributions based on the observation that the rows of H can be interpreted as flow networks, where a stream is defined as the composition of a path and its associated flow. We present an algorithm that identifies the flow of evidence in each path and decomposes it into direct comparisons. To illustrate the methodology, we use two published networks of interventions. The first compares no treatment, quinolone antibiotics, non-quinolone antibiotics and antiseptics for underlying eardrum perforations and the second compares 14 antimanic drugs. We believe that this approach is a useful and novel addition to network meta-analysis methodology, which allows the consistent derivation of the proportion contributions of direct evidence from individual studies to network treatment effects.

Aerobic bacteria associated with chronic suppurative otitis media in Angola

Background

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is an important cause of hearing loss in children and constitutes a serious health problem globally with a strong association to resource-limited living conditions. Topical antibiotics combined with aural toilet is the first-hand treatment for CSOM but antimicrobial resistance and limited availability to antibiotics are obstacles in some areas. The goal of this study was to define aerobic pathogens associated with CSOM in Angola with the overall aim to provide a background for local treatment recommendations.

Methods

Samples from ear discharge and the nasopharynx were collected and cultured from 152 patients with ear discharge and perforation of the tympanic membrane. Identification of bacterial species was performed with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry and pneumococci were serotyped using multiplex polymerase chain reactions. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was done according to EUCAST.

Results

One hundred eighty-four samples from ear discharge and 151 nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and yielded 534 and 289 individual isolates, respectively. In all patients, correspondence rate of isolates from 2 ears in patients with bilateral disease was 27.3% and 9.3% comparing isolates from the nasopharynx and ear discharge, respectively. Proteus spp. (14.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.2%) and Enterococcus spp. (8.8%) were dominating pathogens isolated from ear discharge. A large part of the remaining species belonged to Enterobacteriaceae (23.5%). Pneumococci and Staphylococcus aureus were detected in approximately 10% of nasopharyngeal samples. Resistance rates to quinolones exceeded 10% among Enterobacteriaceae and was 30.8% in S. aureus, whereas 6.3% of P. aeruginosa were resistant.

Conclusions

The infection of the middle ear in CSOM is highly polymicrobial, and isolates found in nasopharynx do not correspond well with those found in ear discharge. Pathogens associated with CSOM in Angola are dominated by gram-negatives including Enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa, while gram-positive enterococci also are common. Based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing topical quinolones would be the preferred antibiotic therapy of CSOM in Angola. Topical antiseptics such as aluminium acetate, acetic acid or boric acid, however, may be more feasible options due to a possibly emerging antimicrobial resistance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40249-018-0422-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses - An Empirical Study

Network meta-analysis (NMA) expands the scope of a conventional pairwise meta-analysis to simultaneously compare multiple treatments, which has an inherent appeal for clinicians, patients, and policy decision makers. Two recent reports have shown that the impact of excluding a treatment on NMAs can be substantial. However, no one has assessed the impact of excluding a trial from NMAs, which is important because many NMAs selectively include trials in the analysis. This article empirically examines the impact of trial exclusion using both the arm-based (AB) and contrast-based (CB) approaches, by reanalyzing 20 published NMAs involving 725 randomized controlled trials and 449,325 patients. For the population-averaged absolute risk estimates using the AB approach, the average fold changes across all networks ranged from 1.004 (with standard deviation 0.004) to 1.072 (with standard deviation 0.184); while the maximal fold changes ranged from 1.032 to 2.349. In 12 out of 20 NMAs, a 1.20-fold or larger change is observed in at least one of the population-averaged absolute risk estimates. In addition, while excluding a trial can substantially change the estimated relative effects (e.g., log odds ratios), there is no systematic difference in terms of changes between the two approaches. Changes in treatment rankings are observed in 7 networks and changes in inconsistency are observed in 3 networks. We do not observe correlations between changes in treatment effects, treatment rankings and inconsistency. Finally, we recommend rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, logical study selection process, and reasonable network geometry to ensure robustness and generalizability of the results of NMAs.

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for ear discharge associated with grommets (ventilation tubes)

BACKGROUND

The insertion of grommets (also known as ventilation or tympanostomy tubes) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on children. Postoperative otorrhoea (discharge) is the most common complication with a reported incidence ranging from 10% to 50%. In the UK, many ENT surgeons treat with topical antibiotics/steroid combinations, but general practitioners, mainly through fears of ototoxicity, are unlikely to prescribe these and choose systemic broad-spectrum antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

1. To identify the most effective non-surgical management of discharge from ears with grommets in place.2. To identify the risks of non-surgical management for this condition (e.g. ototoxicity), and to set benefits of treatment against these risks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005) and EMBASE (1974 to 2005). We also searched the CINAHL, AMED, LILACS, ISI WEB OF KNOWLEDGE, ISI PROCEEDINGS, mRCT, NNR, ZETOC, KOREAMED, CSA, MEDCARIB, INDMED and SAMED databases. The date of the last search was February 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults or children, with any type of grommet and an ear with discharge were included. The trials compared treatment with placebo or one treatment with another. The primary outcome measure was the duration of the discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The trials were selected independently according to the above criteria by the four reviewers. Differences in opinion over the inclusion of studies were resolved by discussion. The studies were graded using the CASP critical appraisal tool. Analyses were based on the presence of discharge seven days from the onset of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

There was very little good quality evidence. Four studies were included, all of them investigating different interventions and therefore a meta-analysis was not possible.Only one study demonstrated a significant difference. Oral amoxicillin clavulanate was compared to placebo in 79 patients. The odds of having a discharge persisting eight days after starting treatment was 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.49) . The number needed to treat to achieve that benefit is 2.5. Participants in both arms of this study also received daily aural toilet. The results will therefore not be applicable to most settings including primary care. No significant benefit was shown in the two studies investigating steroids (oral prednisolone with oral amoxicillin clavulanate and topical dexamethasone with topical ciprofloxacin ear drops), or the one study comparing an antibiotic-steroid combination (Otosporin®) drops versus spray (Otomize®) (although more patients preferred the spray form).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The authors of this review have been unable to identify the most effective intervention or to assess the associated risks. Research is urgently needed into the effectiveness of oral versus topical antibiotics in this group of patients. Clinicians considering antibiotic treatment need to balance any potential benefit against the risks of side effects and antibiotic resistance.

Otitis media

Otitis media (OM) or middle ear inflammation is a spectrum of diseases, including acute otitis media (AOM), otitis media with effusion (OME; 'glue ear') and chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). OM is among the most common diseases in young children worldwide. Although OM may resolve spontaneously without complications, it can be associated with hearing loss and life-long sequelae. In developing countries, CSOM is a leading cause of hearing loss. OM can be of bacterial or viral origin; during 'colds', viruses can ascend through the Eustachian tube to the middle ear and pave the way for bacterial otopathogens that reside in the nasopharynx. Diagnosis depends on typical signs and symptoms, such as acute ear pain and bulging of the tympanic membrane (eardrum) for AOM and hearing loss for OME; diagnostic modalities include (pneumatic) otoscopy, tympanometry and audiometry. Symptomatic management of ear pain and fever is the mainstay of AOM treatment, reserving antibiotics for children with severe, persistent or recurrent infections. Management of OME largely consists of watchful waiting, with ventilation (tympanostomy) tubes primarily for children with chronic effusions and hearing loss, developmental delays or learning difficulties. The role of hearing aids to alleviate symptoms of hearing loss in the management of OME needs further study. Insertion of ventilation tubes and adenoidectomy are common operations for recurrent AOM to prevent recurrences, but their effectiveness is still debated. Despite reports of a decline in the incidence of OM over the past decade, attributed to the implementation of clinical guidelines that promote accurate diagnosis and judicious use of antibiotics and to pneumococcal conjugate vaccination, OM continues to be a leading cause for medical consultation, antibiotic prescription and surgery in high-income countries.

Two new methods to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects

Background

Meta-analysis is a valuable tool for combining evidence from multiple studies. Network meta-analysis is becoming more widely used as a means to compare multiple treatments in the same analysis. However, a network meta-analysis may exhibit inconsistency, whereby the treatment effect estimates do not agree across all trial designs, even after taking between-study heterogeneity into account. We propose two new estimation methods for network meta-analysis models with random inconsistency effects.

Methods

The model we consider is an extension of the conventional random-effects model for meta-analysis to the network meta-analysis setting and allows for potential inconsistency using random inconsistency effects. Our first new estimation method uses a Bayesian framework with empirically-based prior distributions for both the heterogeneity and the inconsistency variances. We fit the model using importance sampling and thereby avoid some of the difficulties that might be associated with using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). However, we confirm the accuracy of our importance sampling method by comparing the results to those obtained using MCMC as the gold standard. The second new estimation method we describe uses a likelihood-based approach, implemented in the metafor package, which can be used to obtain (restricted) maximum-likelihood estimates of the model parameters and profile likelihood confidence intervals of the variance components.

Results

We illustrate the application of the methods using two contrasting examples. The first uses all-cause mortality as an outcome, and shows little evidence of between-study heterogeneity or inconsistency. The second uses “ear discharge" as an outcome, and exhibits substantial between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency. Both new estimation methods give results similar to those obtained using MCMC.

Conclusions

The extent of heterogeneity and inconsistency should be assessed and reported in any network meta-analysis. Our two new methods can be used to fit models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. They are easily implemented using the accompanying R code in the Additional file 1. Using these estimation methods, the extent of inconsistency can be assessed and reported.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0184-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform network meta-analyses with random inconsistency effects

Network meta-analysis is becoming more popular as a way to compare multiple treatments simultaneously. Here, we develop a new estimation method for fitting models for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects. This method is an extension of the procedure originally proposed by DerSimonian and Laird. Our methodology allows for inconsistency within the network. The proposed procedure is semi-parametric, non-iterative, fast and highly accessible to applied researchers. The methodology is found to perform satisfactorily in a simulation study provided that the sample size is large enough and the extent of the inconsistency is not very severe. We apply our approach to two real examples.

Do tissue spears used to clear ear canal pus improve hearing? A case series study of hearing in remote Australian Aboriginal children with chronic suppurative otitis media before and after dry mopping with tissue spears

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of tissue spears to remove otorrhoea from Aboriginal children's ear canals improves hearing in the affected ear.

DESIGN

Case series study with controls.

METHODS

The study comprised 61 Aboriginal children from communities in the remote arid zone of South Australia who had otorrhoea obscuring the tympanic membrane in 1 or both ears. Eighty ears were treated with tissue spears, and hearing was assessed before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-two children had unilateral and 19 had bilateral active disease. An additional 13 ears without otorrhoea served as controls. Improvement by 5 dB HL or greater in a four-frequency pure tone average occurred in 41.3 per cent of treated ears. Subsequently, blinded audiologists made qualitative judgements that a functional improvement in hearing had occurred after tissue spear use in 28.4 per cent of ears.

CONCLUSION

Tissue spears can improve hearing thresholds in a significant proportion of children with otorrhoea. However, the duration of the effect is unknown.

Why are ototopical aminoglycosides still first-line therapy for chronic suppurative otitis media? A systematic review and discussion of aminoglycosides versus quinolones

Objective:

This systematic review aimed to establish that quinolones are as effective as aminoglycosides when used to treat chronic suppurative otitis media.

Method:

The review included good quality, randomised, controlled trials on human subjects, published in English, that compared topical aminoglycosides with topical quinolones for the treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media.

Results:

Nine trials met the criteria. Two studies showed a higher clinical cure rate in the quinolone group (93 per centvs71 per cent,p= 0.04, and 76 per centvs52 per cent,p= 0.009). Four studies showed no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome. A significant difference in microbiological clearance in favour of quinolones was shown in two studies (88 per centvs30 per cent,p< 0.001, and 88 per centvs30 per cent,p< 0.001).

Conclusion:

Topical quinolones do not carry the same risk of ototoxicity as aminoglycosides. Furthermore, they are equal or more effective in treating chronic suppurative otitis media and when used as prophylaxis post-myringotomy. Topical quinolones should be considered a first-line treatment for these patients.

Evidence-based management of otitis media: a 5S model approach

Objective:

The 5S model proposes five hierarchical levels (systems, summaries, synopses, syntheses and studies) of pre-appraised evidence to guide evidence-based practice. This review aimed to identify and summarise pre-appraised evidence at the highest available 5S level for the management of different subsets of otitis media: acute otitis media, otitis media with effusion, chronic suppurative otitis media and cholesteatoma in both adults and children.

Method:

Data sources were pre-appraised evidence resources. Evidence freely available from sources at the highest available level of the 5S model were summarised for this review.

Results:

System level evidence exists for acute otitis media and otitis media with effusion. Summary level evidence exists for recurrent acute otitis media and medical management of chronic suppurative otitis media. There is an absence of randomised controlled trials to prove the efficacy of surgical management of chronic suppurative otitis media and cholesteatoma.

Conclusion:

Until randomised controlled trial data are generated, consensus publications on the surgical management of chronic suppurative otitis media and cholesteatoma should be used to guide best practice.

Diseases of the middle ear in childhood

Middle ear diseases in childhood play an important role in daily ENT practice due to their high incidence. Some of these like acute otitis media or otitis media with effusion have been studied extensively within the last decades. In this article, we present a selection of important childhood middle ear diseases and discuss the actual literature concerning their treatment, management of complications and outcome. Another main topic of this paper deals with the possibilities of surgical hearing rehabilitation in childhood. The bone-anchored hearing aid BAHA(®) and the active partially implantable device Vibrant Soundbridge(®) could successfully be applied for children. In this manuscript, we discuss the actual literature concerning clinical outcomes of these implantable hearing aids.

Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis

Systematic reviews that collate data about the relative effects of multiple interventions via network meta-analysis are highly informative for decision-making purposes. A network meta-analysis provides two types of findings for a specific outcome: the relative treatment effect for all pairwise comparisons, and a ranking of the treatments. It is important to consider the confidence with which these two types of results can enable clinicians, policy makers and patients to make informed decisions. We propose an approach to determining confidence in the output of a network meta-analysis. Our proposed approach is based on methodology developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group for pairwise meta-analyses. The suggested framework for evaluating a network meta-analysis acknowledges (i) the key role of indirect comparisons (ii) the contributions of each piece of direct evidence to the network meta-analysis estimates of effect size; (iii) the importance of the transitivity assumption to the validity of network meta-analysis; and (iv) the possibility of disagreement between direct evidence and indirect evidence. We apply our proposed strategy to a systematic review comparing topical antibiotics without steroids for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations. The proposed framework can be used to determine confidence in the results from a network meta-analysis. Judgements about evidence from a network meta-analysis can be different from those made about evidence from pairwise meta-analyses.

Optimising the pre-treatment process before mobile ear surgery for chronic suppurative otitis media in Wolisso and Attat, Ethiopia

Background:

Chronic suppurative otitis media is a major cause of long-standing hearing impairment in many Sub-Saharan African countries.

Methods:

Attempts were made to optimise the pre-treatment process before mobile ear surgery for chronic suppurative otitis media in Wolisso, a semi-urban community in the Oromia region, and in Attat, a rural community in the Gurage region, both in the south-west of Ethiopia, between 2008 and 2010. This included special training for ENT nurses, and the use of a strict scheduling regime and improved topical treatment.

Results and conclusion:

This strategy allowed effective middle-ear surgery to be carried out using simple means and with a mobile ear surgery team, the latter of which is only transiently but regularly on site.

Microbiology of chronic suppurative otitis media in a tertiary care setup of uttarakhand state, India

Background:

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a notorious infection and a major health problem in developing countries causing serious local damage and threatening complications. Early and effective treatment based on the knowledge of causative micro-organisms and their antimicrobial sensitivity ensures prompt clinical recovery and possible complications can thus be avoided.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to isolate the organisms associated with CSOM and to detect the antibiogram of the aerobic isolates.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 204 patients clinically diagnosed of CSOM were enrolled in the study and the samples were obtained from each patient using sterile cotton swabs and cultured for microbial flora. Drug susceptibility testing for aerobic isolates was conducted using Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method.

Results:

The most common causative organisms isolated were Staphylococcus aureus (48.69%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19.89%) amongst the 191 aerobic isolates. Anaerobes accounted for 29.41% of the isolates while 12.25% were fungi. Antimicrobial profile of aerobic isolates revealed maximum sensitivity to amikacin (95.5%), ceftriaxone (83.4%) and gentamicin (82.7%).

Conclusion:

Knowing the etiological agents of CSOM and their antimicrobial susceptibility is of essential importance for an efficient treatment, prevention of both complications and development of antibiotic resistance and finally, the reduction of the treatment costs.

Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions

BACKGROUND

The assumption of consistency, defined as agreement between direct and indirect sources of evidence, underlies the increasingly popular method of network meta-analysis. No evidence exists so far regarding the extent of inconsistency in full networks of interventions or the factors that control its statistical detection.

METHODS

In this paper we assess the prevalence of inconsistency from data of 40 published networks of interventions involving 303 loops of evidence. Inconsistency is evaluated in each loop by contrasting direct and indirect estimates and by employing an omnibus test of consistency for the entire network. We explore whether different effect measures for dichotomous outcomes are associated with differences in inconsistency, and evaluate whether different ways to estimate heterogeneity affect the magnitude and detection of inconsistency.

RESULTS

Inconsistency was detected in from 2% to 9% of the tested loops, depending on the effect measure and heterogeneity estimation method. Loops that included comparisons informed by a single study were more likely to show inconsistency. About one-eighth of the networks were found to be inconsistent. The proportions of inconsistent loops do not materially change when different effect measures are used. Important heterogeneity or the overestimation of heterogeneity was associated with a small decrease in the prevalence of statistical inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that changing the effect measure might improve statistical consistency, and that an analysis of sensitivity to the assumptions and an estimator of heterogeneity might be needed before reaching a conclusion about the absence of statistical inconsistency, particularly in networks with few studies.

Topical treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a chronic inflammation of the middle ear and mastoid cavity presenting with ear discharge or otorrhea through a non-intact tympanic membrane. CSOM is the most common cause of childhood hearing impairment in developing countries. Accurate diagnosis depends on a high index of suspicion, micro-otoscopic examination, and judicious use of imaging as required. CSOM can be classified into 3 types: tubotympanic, atticoantral, and post-tympanostomy tube insertion. Aerobes, anaerobes and fungi are all potential pathogens in CSOM. This review summarizes the results of recent studies on the bacteriology of CSOM, biofilms, and the role of the nasopharynx pathogens that may have important implications for the treatment of this important pathology; that is often associated with misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Particular emphasis will be placed on topical treatment options including choices of antibiotic, antifungal, and antiseptic agents, delivery technique, spectrum of activity, and risk of ototoxicity.

Chronic suppurative otitis media

INTRODUCTION

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a common cause of hearing impairment and disability. Occasionally it can lead to fatal intracranial infections and acute mastoiditis, especially in developing countries.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic suppurative otitis media in adults and in children? What are the effects of treatments for cholesteatoma in adults and in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 51 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: topical ear cleansing, surgery for cholesteatoma, systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics, topical antibiotics plus topical corticosteroids, topical antiseptics, topical corticosteroids, tympanoplasty (with or without mastoidectomy).

Long-term follow-up of chronic suppurative otitis media in a high-risk children cohort

OBJECTIVE

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is the leading cause of mild to moderate hearing impairment in children worldwide and a major public health problem in many indigenous populations. There is a lack of basic epidemiological facts and knowledge on the development of CSOM, as the disease primarily affects developing countries where research capacities often are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term outcome of CSOM in a high-risk population and to identify risk factors.

METHODS

Follow-up study (2008) on a population-based cohort of 465 children in Greenland, initially examined (1996-8) between the ages 0 and 4 years. Follow-up was attempted among 307 children living in the two major towns. Binomial logistic regression analysis was made to identify risk factors for developing CSOM and for maintaining disease in to adolescence (odds ratios). Log linear binomial regression was used to estimate risk ratios and absolute risks.

RESULTS

At follow-up 236 participated (77% of those available). The prevalence of CSOM was 32/236 (14%) at age group 0-4 years and 21/236 (9%) at age group 11-15 years. Thirteen had disease debut after the initial study. Of those with CSOM in the initial study 24/32 (75%) healed spontaneously. Risk factors for the development of CSOM at any time in childhood was the mother's history of CSOM OR 2.55 (95% CI 1.14-5.70; p=0.02), and mothers with low levels of schooling OR 1.57 (1.03-2.40; p=0.04). Once CSOM had developed boys were more likely to have persistent disease OR 5.46 (95% CI 1.47-20.37; p=0.01). The absolute risk of CSOM if the mother had both a history of CSOM and low schooling was for boys 45.4% (95% CI 26.5-77.7) and for girls 30.7% (95% CI 17.8-53.10). The cumulative risk of CSOM was 19% at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though a large number of CSOM cases seemed to heal spontaneously, the prevalence of untreated CSOM among school-age children in Greenland remained high as new cases were found at follow-up. Increased focus on prevention and identification of children at special risk could reduce the high prevalence of CSOM.

Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2007) meta-analyses with data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized trial with binary primary efficacy outcome. For each meta-analysis, we calculated the summary odds ratio of the adult trials and the pediatric trials, respectively; the relative odds ratio (ROR) of the adult versus pediatric odds ratios per meta-analysis; and the summary ROR across all meta-analyses. ROR <1 means that the experimental intervention is more unfavorable in children than adults.

RESULTS

Across 128 eligible meta-analyses (1051 adult and 343 pediatric trials), the summary ROR did not show a statistically significant difference between adults and children (0.96; 95% confidence intervals, 0.86 to 1.08). However, in all meta-analyses except for 1, the individual ROR's 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in efficacy over 20%. In two-thirds, the relative difference in observed point estimates exceeded 50%. Nine statistically significant discrepancies were identified; 4 of them were also clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment effects are on average similar in adults and children, but available evidence leaves large uncertainty about their relative efficacy. Clinically important discrepancies may occur.

Acute and chronic otitis media

Otitis media (OM) is a common illness in young children. OM has historically been associated with frequent and severe complications. Nowadays it is usually a mild condition that often resolves without treatment. For most children, progression to tympanic membrane perforation and chronic suppurative OM is unusual (low-risk populations); this has led to reevaluation of many interventions that were used routinely in the past. Evidence from a large number of randomized controlled trials can help when discussing treatment options with families. Indigenous children in the United States, Canada, Northern Europe, Australia, and New Zealand experience more OM than other children. In some places, Indigenous children continue to suffer from the most severe forms of the disease. Communities with more than 4% of the children affected by chronic tympanic membrane perforation have a major public health problem (high-risk populations). Higher rates of invasive pneumococcal disease, pneumonia, and chronic suppurative lung disease (including bronchiectasis) are also seen. These children will often benefit from effective treatment of persistent (or recurrent) bacterial infection.

Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparison

BACKGROUND

Comparing the effectiveness of interventions is now a requirement for regulatory approval in several countries. It also aids in clinical and public health decision-making. However, in the absence of head-to-head randomized trials (RCTs), determining the relative effectiveness of interventions is challenging. Several methodological options are now available. We aimed to determine the comparative validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons of RCTs with the mixed treatment comparison approach.

METHODS

Using systematic searching, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating more than 3 interventions for a similar disease state with binary outcomes. We abstracted data on each clinical trial including population n and outcomes. We conducted fixed effects meta-analysis of each intervention versus mutual comparator and then applied the adjusted indirect comparison. We conducted a mixed treatment meta-analysis on all trials and compared the point estimates and 95% confidence/credible intervals (CIs/CrIs) to determine important differences.

RESULTS

We included data from 7 reviews that met our inclusion criteria, allowing a total of 51 comparisons. According to the a priori consistency rule, we found 2 examples where the analytic comparisons were statistically significant using the mixed treatment comparison over the adjusted indirect comparisons and 1 example where this was vice versa. We found 6 examples where the direction of effect differed according to the indirect comparison method chosen and we found 9 examples where the confidence intervals were importantly different between approaches.

CONCLUSION

In most analyses, the adjusted indirect comparison yields estimates of relative effectiveness equal to the mixed treatment comparison. In less complex indirect comparisons, where all studies share a mutual comparator, both approaches yield similar benefits. As comparisons become more complex, the mixed treatment comparison may be favoured.

Upper respiratory tract infections (including otitis media)

Upper respiratory tract infections (including otitis media) are the most common illnesses affecting children. Most illnesses are mild and resolve completely without specific treatment, but the frequency of infection and association with fever and constitutional symptoms creates significant distress for the child and the family. By understanding the evidence available from high-quality studies, the clinician can advise the families on appropriate action. The goal of this article is to support clinicians in answering the following questions: (1) What happened to children with these conditions when no additional treatment was provided? (2) Which interventions have been assessed in well-designed studies? (3) Which interventions have been shown to improve outcomes? (4) How large is the overall benefit?

Chronic suppurative otitis media

INTRODUCTION

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) is a common cause of hearing impairment, disability, and poor scholastic performance, and can occasionally lead to fatal intracranial infections and acute mastoiditis, especially in resource-poor countries.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic suppurative otitis media in adults; and in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 48 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: ear cleansing, systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics, topical antiseptics, topical corticosteroids, tympanoplasty (with or without mastoidectomy).

Interventions for ear discharge associated with grommets (ventilation tubes)

BACKGROUND

The insertion of grommets (also known as ventilation or tympanostomy tubes) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on children. Postoperative otorrhoea (discharge) is the most common complication with a reported incidence ranging from 10% to 50%. In the UK, many ENT surgeons treat with topical antibiotics/steroid combinations, but general practitioners, mainly through fears of ototoxicity, are unlikely to prescribe these and choose systemic broad-spectrum antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

1. To identify the most effective non-surgical management of discharge from ears with grommets in place.2. To identify the risks of non-surgical management for this condition (e.g. ototoxicity), and to set benefits of treatment against these risks.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005) and EMBASE (1974 to 2005). We also searched the CINAHL, AMED, LILACS, ISI WEB OF KNOWLEDGE, ISI PROCEEDINGS, mRCT, NNR, ZETOC, KOREAMED, CSA, MEDCARIB, INDMED and SAMED databases. The date of the last search was February 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults or children, with any type of grommet and an ear with discharge were included. The trials compared treatment with placebo or one treatment with another. The primary outcome measure was the duration of the discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The trials were selected independently according to the above criteria by the four reviewers. Differences in opinion over the inclusion of studies were resolved by discussion. The studies were graded using the CASP critical appraisal tool. Analyses were based on the presence of discharge seven days from the onset of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

There was very little good quality evidence. Four studies were included, all of them investigating different interventions and therefore a meta-analysis was not possible. Only one study demonstrated a significant difference. Oral amoxicillin clavulanate was compared to placebo in 79 patients. The odds of having a discharge persisting eight days after starting treatment was 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.49) . The number needed to treat to achieve that benefit is 2.5. Participants in both arms of this study also received daily aural toilet. The results will therefore not be applicable to most settings including primary care. No significant benefit was shown in the two studies investigating steroids (oral prednisolone with oral amoxicillin clavulanate and topical dexamethasone with topical ciprofloxacin ear drops), or the one study comparing an antibiotic-steroid combination (Otosporin(R)) drops versus spray (Otomize(R)) (although more patients preferred the spray form).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The authors of this review have been unable to identify the most effective intervention or to assess the associated risks. Research is urgently needed into the effectiveness of oral versus topical antibiotics in this group of patients. Clinicians considering antibiotic treatment need to balance any potential benefit against the risks of side effects and antibiotic resistance.

Systemic antibiotics versus topical treatments for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations

BACKGROUND

Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing.

OBJECTIVES

To compare systemic antibiotics and topical antiseptics or antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with an underlying eardrum perforation (CSOM).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965) PREMEDLINE, Metadatabase of registers of ongoing trials (mRCT), and article references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials; any systemic versus topical treatment (excluding steroids); participants with CSOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data into RevMan; two authors provided a second assessment of titles and abstracts, and inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (833 randomised participants; 842 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included mastoid cavity infections, other diagnoses, or complications. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than systemic antibiotics at clearing discharge at 1-2 weeks: relative risks (RR) were, 3.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 5.49) using systemic non-quinolone antibiotics (2 trials, N = 116), and 3.18 (1.87 to 5.43) using systemic quinolone (3 trials, N = 175); or 2.75 (1.38 to 5.46) in favour of systemic plus topical quinolone over systemic quinolone alone (2 trials, N = 90). No statistically significant benefit was seen at 2-4 weeks for topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or topical antiseptic over systemic antibiotics (mostly non-quinolones), but numbers were small: one trial tested topical non-quinolones (N = 31); two tested antiseptics (N = 152). No benefit of adding systemic to topical treatment at 1-2 weeks was detected either, although evidence was limited (three trials, N = 204). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak. Adverse events reported were generally mild, although hearing worsened by ototoxicity (damaging auditory hair cells) was seen with chloramphenicol drops (non-quinolone antibiotic).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Topical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than systemic antibiotics; topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or antiseptic results are less clear. Evidence regarding safety was weak. Further studies should clarify topical non-quinolones and antiseptic effectiveness, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications), and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether there may be fewer adverse events with topical quinolones than other topical or systemic treatments.