ArticleBioinformation2025
Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic techniques for tympanic membrane repair: A longitudinal study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic tympanic membrane perforations remain a frequent cause of hearing loss, and the optimal surgical approach for repair continues to be debated. This longitudinal comparative study evaluates graft success, hearing improvement, operative time, and complications between microscopic and endoscopic myringoplasty. Among patients studied, the endoscopic technique yielded greater hearing gain, reduced postoperative morbidity, and shorter hospital stay compared to the microscopic method. Although graft success was slightly higher in the endoscopic group (93.3% vs. 86.7%), complications were markedly fewer. Overall, endoscopic myringoplasty demonstrated superior efficiency, patient comfort, and satisfaction, supporting its advantage over the traditional microscopic approach.
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.