ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Efficacy of Classic Ear Molding for Neonatal Ear Deformity: Case Series and Literature Review.
Review 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Evidence of the Effect of Breastfeeding on Ear Molding Outcomes: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Investigation of morphometric features of auricle in newborns and etiology of auricle deformity.Pediatric investigation · 2024Article
- Classic ear moulding technique for a lop ear deformity: case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Nonsurgical molding of congenital auricular deformities and analysis of the correction outcomes: A single-center, retrospective study in east China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe analyzed an original case series of the classic ear-molding method and evaluated the efficacy and complication rate of the method compared to commercial ear-molding products by meta-analysis to draw conclusions on the efficacy of the classic method.
methodsFrom January 2019 to March 2022, we selected patients who underwent classic ear molding for newborn ear deformities at our institution and reviewed the patient age, treatment time, efficiency and complications. Additionally, the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched, and meta-analysis (following the PRISMA guidelines) was performed.
resultsIn the case study, the success rate (excellent and good outcomes) of the classic ear-molding method was 92.6%. The mean age at application and mean duration of application were 5.81 ± 6.09 days and 32.13 ± 7.90 days, respectively. In the systematic review, the classic method group showed a statistically smaller success rate (proportion of 0.79) and statistically smaller complication rate (proportion of 0.05) than the commercial product group (proportion of 0.83).
conclusionsCompared with commercial products, classic ear molding has remarkable and comparable therapeutic effects on neonatal auricular deformities. Additionally, the classic ear-molding method is more suitable for infants with auricular deformities from socioeconomically vulnerable areas. Thus, the classic ear-molding method could be a better option for congenital ear anomalies than commercial ear-molding products.
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.