Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42757348›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology open2024

Association of Residual Low-frequency Hearing Loss in Children and Type of Ventilation Tube Placed During Myringotomy With Tympanostomy Tube Placement.

Kristin Drew, Celeste Goh Yergin, Adam Snoap, Victoria Claire James, William Collins, Thomas Schrepfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kristin DrewUniversity of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.
Celeste Goh YerginUniversity of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.
Adam SnoapDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Victoria Claire JamesDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.
William CollinsDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.
Thomas SchrepferDivision of Pediatric Otolaryngology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Assess whether titanium Tytan tympanostomy tubes result in a larger air-bone gap (ABG) at lower frequencies compared to Armstrong and Paparella tubes. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Pediatric otolaryngology department of a 1000-bed academic center. Patients: A cohort of 110 children, aged 4-16 years, who had no sensorineural hearing loss or congenital syndromes and underwent tympanostomy tube placement between August 2018 and February 2021. Interventions: Tympanostomy procedures using Tytan, Armstrong, or Paparella tubes. Main Outcome Measure: Evaluation of pure tone average (PTA) and ABG at frequencies of 500 and 250 Hz. Results: Tytan tubes enhanced PTA and ABGs across studied frequencies. Nonetheless, post-Tytan tube placement exhibited significantly worse PTA and 500 Hz ABG compared to Armstrong and Paparella tubes ( Conclusion: While Tytan tubes optimize PTA, they are linked to enduring ABG ≥ 15 dB at lower frequencies. Notably, they perform less favorably in terms of 500 Hz PTA and ABG compared to both Armstrong and Paparella and demonstrate poorer 250 Hz ABG when juxtaposed with Armstrong tubes.

Indexed as

CHLMyringotomyOtitis mediaPediatricTympanostomy tube

Identifiers

PMID42757348
PMCPMC13585301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.