ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
18-FDG PET in the Evaluation of Therapeutic Response of Necrotizing Otitis Externa.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Semi-Quantitative Metrics ofTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Pooled it
- Nuclear medicine imaging to guide antibiotic therapy: an expert review.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- 18-FDG PET in the Evaluation of Therapeutic Response of Necrotizing Otitis Externa.The Laryngoscope · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe duration of antibiotic treatment for necrotizing otitis externa (NEO) and the criteria for discontinuation are currently uncodified. Our study evaluated the performance of [18F]FDG PET to assess the therapeutic response of NEO.
methodsWe retrospectively included patients treated for NEO who underwent a PET scan at baseline and 4 to 9 weeks after antibiotic initiation. PET images were analyzed visually and quantitatively (SUVmax, Total Lesion Glycolysis [TLG], and Total Metabolic Volume [TMV]). An intensity-weighted extent score (extent) that we created was also calculated. For each parameter, delta values ("∆": percentage change from baseline for each parameter) were also calculated.
resultsThirty-nine patients and 40 ears were enrolled. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from 32 (86%) samples. Twenty-nine (72.5%) patients were treated with CEFTAZIDIME and CIPROFLOXACIN for a median of 6.9 weeks. On PET scan re-evaluation, 15 (27.5%) patients were visually in complete response, 17 (42.5%) in partial response, 5 (12.5%) stable, and 3 (7.5%) in progression. The sensitivity and specificity of visual analysis for the diagnosis of recovery were 100% and 43%, respectively. The best performing parameters for predicting recurrence were initial TLG and TMV (sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 100% for respective thresholds of 50.1 g and 8.3 mL). ∆extent showed sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 97.1% using a threshold of -4.3%, and ∆TLG showed sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 94.3% using a threshold of -37.4%.
conclusionPET performed well in assessing the therapeutic response of NEO, with excellent sensitivity but low specificity of visual analysis. A complementary quantitative analysis was useful to distinguish between satisfactory and insufficient partial responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
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.