SynthesisBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Predictive value of radiologic studies for malignant otitis externa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Limitations, Patient Characteristics, and Confounding Factors Impacting Neurotologic Lesion Imaging: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the clinical and radiological features of patients with Malignant otitis externa (MOE).BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The Association Between Malignant Otitis Externa and Diabetes Mellitus in Africa: A Systematic Review.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- [Research progress of necrotizing otitis externa].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023Article
- Head-to-Head Comparison BetweenJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of Necrotizing Otitis Externa (NOE) based on radiologic studies.
methodsThe PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases were searched. True-positive and false-negative results were extracted for each study. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
resultsThe included studies contained data on 37 studies diagnosed with NOE. The sensitivity of gallium-67, technetium-99m, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was 0.9378 (0.7688-0.9856), 0.9699 (0.8839-0.9927), and 0.9417 (0.6968-0.9913), respectively. For Computed Tomography (CT), the positive criteria consisted of bony erosion alone and bony erosion plus any soft tissue abnormality. The sensitivity of CT based only on bony erosion was 0.7062 (0.5954-0.7971); it was higher 0.9572 (0.9000-0.9823) when based on bony erosion plus any soft tissue abnormality.
conclusionThe diagnostic sensitivity of technetium-99m, gallium-67, and MRI was favorable. On CT, the presence of bony erosion may be a useful diagnostic marker of NOE, but the diagnostic sensitivity will be even higher if the criterion of any soft tissue abnormality is also included; however, care should be taken when interpreting the results. Our study demonstrates the potential utility of radiology studies for diagnosing NOE, but their lack of specificity must be considered, and standardized anatomic criteria are still needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2A.
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.