SynthesisThe journal of international advanced otology2024
Efficacy of Biologic Therapies for Eosinophilic Otitis Media: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of adding biologic agents to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for refractory chronic suppurative otitis media: comparative outcomes and cytokine-driven mechanisms.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eosinophilic otitis media, first reported in Japan, is a viscous, intractable otitis media often linked to bronchial asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis, characterized by highly viscous middle ear effusion. Its pathological mechanism remains unclear and the condition occasionally does not respond to steroids. It is now recognized as a rare type 2 inflammatory disease and should be treated specifically to enhance quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacies of biologic treatments. We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to September 2023. We retrieved ear examination findings, otitis media-related and symptom scores, air-bone gaps and hearing thresholds, serum eosinophil, and immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels before and after biologic treatments. Biologics treatment significantly improved subjective otitis media-related scores, compared with control group (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-2.24; -1.01], I2=54%). Additionally, the serum eosinophil counts and IgE levels significantly decreased (SMD -1.40; 95% CI [-1.99; -0.81], I 2=0%) after 6-12 months of biologic treatments, but the hearing thresholds did not significantly change. There were no significant differences between groups treated with dupilumab and groups treated with other biologics. Biologics treatment for eosinophilic otitis media significantly improved subjective otitis media-related scores and decreased serum eosinophil and IgE levels, but no significant changes in hearing threshold. More randomized cohort studies are needed to confirm the efficacies of biologics in patients with refractory eosinophilic otitis media.
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.