ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Audiometric evaluation in different clinical presentations of otitis media.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systems perspectives on pediatric otitis media: environmental exposures, genetic susceptibility, and biomarker-guided interventions.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Audiometric Outcomes in Chronic Otitis Media with Mastoid Involvement: A Five-Year Clinical Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Influence of Different Noise Types on Hearing Function in Patients Treated for Mild Otitis Media.Noise & healthArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the hearing thresholds in acute otitis media, otitis media with effusion and chronic otitis media (non-suppurative, non-cholesteatomatous suppurative and cholesteatomatous) and to compare the hearing outcomes with non-diseased ears (in bilateral cases) or contralateral healthy ears (in unilateral cases), since hearing loss is the most frequent sequel of otitis media and there is no previous study comparing the audiometric thresholds among the different forms of otitis media.
methodsCross sectional, controlled study. We performed conventional audiometry (500-8000Hz) and tympanometry in patients with otitis media and healthy individuals (control group). Hearing loss was considered when the hearing thresholds were > 25 dBHL.
resultsOf the 112 patients diagnosed with otitis media (151 ears), 48 were men (42.86%) and 64 were women (57.14%). The average age was 42.72 years. Of those, 25 (22.32%) were diagnosed as AOM, 15 (13.39%) were diagnosed with OME and the remaining 72 (63.28%) were diagnosed with COM (non-suppurative COM, n=31; suppurative COM, n=18; cholesteatomatous COM, n=23). As compared with controls, all forms of otitis media had significantly higher bone-conduction thresholds (500-4000Hz). Conductive hearing loss was the most frequent type of hearing loss (58.94%). However, the number of patients with mixed hearing loss was also relevant (39.07%). We noted that the presence of sensorioneural component occurred more frequently in 1) Higher frequencies; and 2) In groups of otitis media that were more active or severe in the inflammatory/infective standpoint (AOM, suppurative COM and cholesteatomatous COM).
conclusionAll types of otitis media, even those with infrequent episodes of inflammation and otorrhea, had worse bone conduction thresholds as compared with nondiseased ears (p<0.01). We observed worse hearing outcomes in ears with recurrent episodes of otorrhea and in ears with AOM, especially in high frequencies.
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.