Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26949997›Full record

Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2016

Rapid maxillary expansion versus middle ear tube placement: Comparison of hearing improvements in children with resistance otitis media with effusion.

Nihat Kılıç, Özgür Yörük, Songül Cömert Kılıç, Gülhan Çatal, Sezgin Kurt

Open access · diamondAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on hearing loss and otitis media in cleft palate children.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nihat Kılıça  Associate Professor. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Özgür Yörükb  Associate Professor. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Otorhinolarygology, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Songül Cömert Kılıçc  Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon. Ministry of Health, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Centre for Oral and Dental Health, Erzurum, Turkey.
Gülhan Çatald  Private Practice, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Sezgin Kurte  Assistant Professor. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Otorhinolarygology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Atatürk University · TRKafkas University · TRKocaeli Üniversitesi · TRMinistry of Health · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test the null hypothesis that there are significant differences in hearing improvements of children with resistance otitis media with effusion (OME) who undergo a rapid maxillary expansion (RME) procedure or ventilation tube placement.

methodsForty-two children between 4.5 and 15 years old were divided into three groups: RME, ventilation tube, and control groups. The RME group consisted of 15 children with maxillary constriction and resistance OME that indicated ventilation tube placement. The ventilation tube group consisted of 16 children for whom ventilation tube placement was indicated but no maxillary constriction. The control group consisted of 11 children with no orthodontic and/or rhinologic problems. Hearing thresholds were evaluated with three audiometric records: (1) before RME/ventilation tube placement (T0); (2) after RME/ventilation tube placement (T1), and (3) after an observation period of 10 months (T2). The control group was matched to these periods, except T1.

resultsHearing thresholds decreased significantly in both the RME and ventilation tube groups (P < .001). Hearing thresholds decreased approximately 15 and 17 decibels in the RME and ventilation tube groups, respectively, but differences in improvements were insignificant between the two study groups (P > .05). Slight changes were observed in the control groups.

conclusionThe null hypothesis was rejected. RME showed similar effects as ventilation tube placement for release of otitis media and improvement of hearing thresholds levels. RME should be preferred as a first treatment option for children with maxillary constriction and resistance OME.

Indexed as

Middle Ear VentilationPalatal Expansion TechniqueAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEar, MiddleFemaleHumansMaleOtitis Media with EffusionHearing lossMiddle ear tubeOtitis media with effusionRapid maxillary expansion

Identifiers

PMID26949997
PMCPMC8600847
OpenAlexW2295635682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.