ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Accuracy of diagnostic tests for perilymphatic fistula: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perilymphatic fistula (PLF) is a challenging inner ear condition, characterized by the abnormal connection between inner and middle ear and subsequent leakage of inner ear liquid (perilymph) into the middle ear. Early surgical intervention for PLF might lead to favorable audiological and vestibular outcomes. The conventional reference standard of PLF detection is the intraoperative visualization of perilymph leakage during explorative tympanotomy or endoscopic inspection; the specificity and sensitivity of this method is unknown. Systematic reviews assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for PLF are not available. Objective: To systematically review the literature for qualitative evidence exploring the diagnostic tests for the PLF diagnosis. The proposed systematic review will answer the following question: What is the accuracy of diagnostic tests in detecting perilymphatic fistula in humans? Methods: Eligibility criteria: original peer-reviewed articles regarding studies on humans of any age containing data with diagnostic test accuracy estimation (sensitivity and specificity) for PLF diagnosis or in which diagnostic test accuracy could be calculated based on data provided, without language, study design or study date limits. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science will be searched for eligible articles. Additional manual searches will be performed. Covidence software will be used for title and abstract screening, full text review and data extraction. The risk of bias assessment will be conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Test Accuracy 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. If two or more high-quality articles evaluating the same diagnostic test will be identified, their findings will be quantitatively synthesized; if a quantitative synthesis is not feasible, the results will be described in a narrative summary. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework will be used to evaluate evidence strength. Study funded by Oslo University Hospital.
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.