ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Hearing Benefits of Clinical Management for Meniere's Disease.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial alpha diversity in the intestine negatively correlated with disease duration in patients with Meniere's disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [The research of the contralateral ear hearing thresholds and the hearing prognosis in unilateral Meniere's disease].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Meniere’s disease is a progressive hearing−disabling condition. Patients can benefit from strict clinical management, including lifestyle and dietary counseling, and medical treatment. A prospective cohort study was carried out with 154 patients with definite Meniere’s disease, with an average age of 43.53 ± 11.40, and a male to female ratio of 0.97:1. The pure-tone thresholds of all 165 affected ears, over a one-year clinical management period, were analyzed. After one year, 87.27% of patients had improved or preserved their hearing at a low frequency, and 71.51% at a high frequency. The hearing threshold at frequencies from 250 Hz to 2000 Hz had improved significantly (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.01), and deteriorated slightly at 8000 Hz (p < 0.05). Of all the patients, 40.00% had a hearing average threshold that reached ≤25 dB HL after the clinical management period, among whom 27.27% were patients in stage 3. The restoration time was 2.5 (1.0, 4.125) months, with a range of 0.5−11.0 months, and the restoration time was longer for stage 3 than for stages 1 and 2 (u = −2.542, p < 0.05). The rising curves improved the most (p < 0.05), with most becoming peaks, whereas most peaks and flats remained the same. Patients who were initially in the earlier stages (95% CI 1.710~4.717, OR 2.840, p < 0.001), have an increased odds ratio of hearing by an average of ≤25 dB HL. Age (95% CI 1.003~1.074, OR 1.038, p = 0.031), peak curve (95% CI 1.038~5.945, OR = 2.484, p = 0.041), and flat curve (95% CI 1.056~19.590, OR = 4.549, p = 0.042), compared with the rising curve, increase the odds ratio of hearing on average by >25 dB HL. Most patients can have their hearing preserved or improved through strict clinical management, and sufficient follow-up is also essential. Stage 3 patients also have the potential for hearing improvement, although the restoration time is longer than in the early stages. The initial hearing stage, age, and audiogram pattern are related to the hearing benefits.
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.