ReviewDrug safety2003
A benefit-risk assessment of ofloxacin otic solution in ear infection.
Review in Drug safety, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extended high frequency hearing loss in tinnitus-positive chronic suppurative otitis media patient.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
- Acute otitis media in children with tympanostomy tubes.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibacterial with potent bactericidal activities and the topical otological preparation of this drug has been clinically utilised since the late 1980s. The rate of eradication with ofloxacin ranges from 83.3% to 100% for all pathogens commonly isolated from middle ear effusions in cases of otitis media and otitis externa. Despite the significant length of its usage, emergence of resistant pathogens has been rarely encountered in clinical trials; only two strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been documented with decreased susceptibility to ofloxacin following the use of the otic solution.Ear infections, including otitis externa, chronic suppurative otitis media and otorrhoea associated with tympanostomy tubes, are common problems in clinical practice. The potential complications associated with ear infection can be otological, extratemporal, or even psychosocial. They are sometimes fatal and the effect can be long-lasting and detrimental. The use of an effective topical antibacterial with high cost-effectiveness is definitely warranted. As regards various clinical aspects, including overall success rate, symptomatic relief of otalgia and otorrhoea, ofloxacin otic solution was found to be more effective than comparator agents, be it a topical antibacterial, a systemic antibacterial or combination drugs. The systemic absorption of fluoroquinolones is minimal after topical application. Ofloxacin otic solution 0.3% has been shown to have a low rate of adverse drug reactions. Adverse reactions to ofloxacin otic solution were generally mild. The lack of ototoxic effect from ofloxacin eardrops, even in the concentration higher than 0.3%, has been demonstrated in animal studies. In the clinical setting, no increase in bone-conduction threshold has been shown after the treatment of topical ofloxacin otic solution. There have not been any reports of ototoxicity with ofloxacin otic solution since its approval. To conclude, ofloxacin otic solution 0.3% is clinically effective in the treatment of otitis externa and chronic suppurative otitis media in particular with respect to the overall cure rate, relief of otalgia and otorrhoea. It is well tolerated, with minimal adverse effects. It is not associated with any ototoxicity both experimentally and clinically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.