ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Endotyping of Cholesteatoma: Which Molecular Biomarkers? A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A UK Biobank Study on Genetic Variants in Pattern-Recognition Receptor (PRR) Signaling Indicates Self-Perpetuatin Inflammation of Cholesteatoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Cholesteatoma: An Updated Review of Molecular Pathogenesis and Potential Therapeutic Directions.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Identification of Differential Metabolites in Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media With Non-Targeted and Targeted Metabolomics Approach.Smart medicine · 2025Article
- Genetic risk score for cholesteatoma recurrence: using UK Biobank data toward more individualized patient management.International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics · 2025Article
- Biology of recurrent cholesteatoma in a Romanian young patient - a case report.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSo far, no medical treatment is available for cholesteatoma (C) and the only effective therapy is complete surgical removal, but recurrence is common even after surgical treatment. While C is classically divided into two clinical phenotypes, congenital and acquired, only a few studies have focused on its potential biomarkers. This study aims to revise the literature to identify which biomarkers can define the endotype of C.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) process to identify published experimental articles about molecular biomarkers in C.
resultsKGF and its receptor, MMP-9, KRT-1, KRT-10, and MIF might be considered biomarkers of recurrence, whereas Ki-67, TLR-4, RANKL, IL17, MMP-2, MMP-9, IL6, TNF-α, should be considered more specifically as biomarkers of bony erosion.
conclusionsThese results are interesting especially from a prognostic point of view, nevertheless more studies are needed to search new biomarkers of C that could completely change not only the therapeutic standards of the disease, but also the clinical history of C itself in the era of precision medicine.
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.