ArticleHNO2021
[Spontaneous course of traumatic tympanic membrane perforations].
Article in HNO, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Achievements and Challenges in Transplantation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Otorhinolaryngology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraumatic eardrum perforation is a common presentation in otorhinolaryngologic practices and emergency clinics. A consistent management strategy (active intervention vs. watchful waiting) is, however, still lacking.
objectiveIn the following study, the outcome of watchful waiting is analyzed and presented. MATERIALS AND
methodsA collective of 272 patients presenting at two different specialist ENT practices within days of traumatic tympanic membrane perforation from June 2002 to March 2019 were analyzed. Treatment was non-surgical, with prospective monitoring. Whereas antibiotics were not given at all in one practice, they were given only upon signs of infection in the other practice. The outcome was evaluated retrospectively on the basis of patient files.
resultsThe collective consisted of 185 males and 87 females. Mean age was 30 years (range: 7 months to 82 years). The perforations were most commonly located in the upper anterior and lower posterior quadrants. According to Griffin grading, the size was grade I in 97%. The three most common causes were impact to the ear, barotrauma, and foreign bodies. Under a watchful waiting regimen, 95% of the patients presenting for follow-up checks showed complete closure.
conclusionWatchful waiting can be assessed as appropriate in traumatic eardrum perforation, provided otorhinolaryngologic follow-up is ensured. An exception is blast injury, which is now much less common in Central Europe, as this is associated with a risk of secondary cholesteatomas. In these rare cases, active treatment with surgical exploration of the middle ear including relining the perforation is indicated.
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.