ReviewCurrent medical mycology2023
Comparison of acidifying agents and clotrimazole for treatment of otomycosis: a comprehensive one-way mini-review.
Review in Current medical mycology, 2023. 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.
- The effect of silver nitrate versus clotrimazole in treatment of otomycosis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- A Novel Herbal Nano-Based Ear Drop withPharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Augmented glycerosomes as a promising approach against fungal ear infection: Optimization and microbiological,International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2024Article
- Oxidative effects of the human antifungal drug clotrimazole on the eucaryotic model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Archives of microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: This review aimed to compare the efficacy of acidifying agents and clotrimazole in the treatment of patients with otomycosis. Materials and Methods: The databases, including Research Gate, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and library databases of clinical trials were searched in this study. The keywords were "Fungal Ear Infection" and "Otitis External" for otomycosis, "Clotrimazole", Lotrimin", "Mycelex", "Desenex", and "Clotrimaderm Mycoderm" for clotrimazole, and "Boric Acid Alcohol", "Alcohol-vinegar solution", Burow solution (Domeboro), "Isopropyl Alcohol", "VoSol" and "Acetic Acid" for acidifying agents. Regarding search strategy, a total of 53 studies were collected, 11 of which were maintained for assessment. Almost all studies were published after 1990. These articles discussed the role of clotrimazole and acidifying compounds in the treatment of otomycosis. Moreover, the route of administration, dosage, and side effects of these medications were highlighted. Results: Eight studies had similar results and claimed that clotrimazole has the best or most significant effect on the treatment of otomycosis for patients suffering from pain, itching, swelling, and hearing loss. Conclusion: Although all medications appear effective, there is a paucity of evidence to fully support the decision to choose between clotrimazole or acidifying agents for the treatment of otomycosis in terms of both efficacy and safety. However, in the biomedical field, the re-emerging investigation attention is due to the statements of a number of mechanisms defending the use of acidifying agents to treat mycosis (of antifungal-resistant species).
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.