Observational studyEuropean 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 Surgery2025
Biologics for eosinophilic otitis media: a retrospective case study in a multidisciplinary center.
Observational study in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilizing temporal imaging to enhance early diagnosis of eosinophilic otitis media in clinical practice.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 · 2025Article
- Subtotal petrosectomy and cochlear implantation for severe eosinophilic otitis media with infection: A case report.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEosinophilic otitis media (EOM) is a difficult-to-treat otitis media characterized by eosinophilic accumulation in the middle ear mucosa and effusion. It is refractory to conventional treatments and is strongly associated with asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The diagnostic criteria for EOM were established by IINO in 2011. With the recognition of type 2 inflammatory diseases, the gold standard of treatment is the systemic and topical administration of corticosteroids. Recently, several retrospective studies have demonstrated the efficacy of biologic treatments in EOM. We aimed to share our experience regarding the response of EOM after the use of biologics.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational analysis including patients with refractory EOM treated with different biologics (benralizumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab) for concomitant severe asthma, urticaria and/or severe uncontrolled CRSwNP from 2011 to 2023. Treatment effectiveness in terms of EOM severity was measured using medical Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE).
resultsWe illustrated 4 clinical cases of uncontrolled comorbid EOM and demonstrated the complexity of multidisciplinary medical pathway with good response to biologics. We also observed that response to EOM and CRSwNP does not always follow that of asthma.
conclusionsThe results of our small sample were consistent with those found in the literature and showed control of EOM with biologics. We need a larger multicentric sample and methodology to confirm these results and to compare the efficacy of different biologics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39271591What 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.