ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026
Otovent Versus Valsalva: Physiological Insights for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Autoinflation in Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAutoinflation aids assessment of Eustachian tube function, or as a conservative treatment for obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction. This study compares the physiological characteristics of 2 autoinflation techniques, the Otovent® device and the Valsalva manoeuvre, to inform clinical application for both diagnosis and therapy. STUDY
designProspective physiological study.
settingTertiary academic teaching hospital.
methodsTwenty-one healthy adult volunteers performed 3 trials of both the Otovent and Valsalva manoeuvres. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) was used as the primary analysis to compare the mean maximum and plateau nasopharyngeal pressures. Intra-subject repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while inter-subject consistency was evaluated by comparing standard deviations. Eustachian tube (ET) opening rates were measured via tubo-tympano-aerodynamic-graphy, otoscopy, and participant report.
resultsThe Valsalva manoeuvre generated significantly higher nasopharyngeal pressures. Mean maximum NP pressure for Valsalva (597.5 daPa) was greater than for Otovent (482.3 daPa) (F(1, 104) = 18.82, P < .001). This difference was more pronounced for plateau pressures (Valsalva: 486.0 daPa vs Otovent: 278.0 daPa; F(1, 104) = 126.42, P < .001). Conversely, the Otovent demonstrated markedly superior consistency, showing higher intra-subject repeatability for plateau pressure (ICC = 0.872 vs 0.572) and substantially less intersubject variability (SD ± 39.8 daPa vs ±144 daPa). ET opening rates were comparable between the 2 techniques.
conclusionsOtovent facilitates autoinflation at lower but significantly more consistent pressures than Valsalva. Thus, Otovent may offer greater clinical value when a controlled, repeatable insufflation pressure is required for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes.
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.