Literature DB >> 12434959

Effectiveness of ear syringing in general practice: a randomised controlled trial and patients' experiences.

David Memel1, Carole Langley, Chris Watkins, Barbara Laue, Martin Birchall, Max Bachmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ear syringing is a common procedure performed for a variety of symptoms in primary care. Reports of its effectiveness vary considerably and no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed. AIM: To estimate the effect of ear syringing on hearing thresholds and on symptoms leading to ear syringing in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised single-blind controlled trial. Before-and-after self-assessments of symptoms.
SETTING: Patients from three general practices in the Bristol area attending twice-weekly clinics dedicated to ear syringing over a 12-week period.
METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned to have their hearing tested before and after ear syringing, or twice before ear syringing. Changes in hearing threshold were measured by pure tone audiometry (PTA). All patients completed sef-assessment forms of symptoms using Likert scales before, and one week after, ear syringing.
RESULTS: Hearing threshold improved by 10 dB or more in 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21% to 47%) of the intervention group and 1.6% of control group (number needed to treat = 3.1, 95% CI = 2.2 to 5.2, P<0.001). The levels of improvement in the intervention group ranged between 15 dB and 36 dB. The symptoms that most commonly improved included hearing on the phone, pain, a feeling of blocked ears, and hearing one-to-one. There was a strong relationship between the change thresholds, as measure using PTA, and self-reports of hearing improvement. Secondary analysis was unable to identify predictors of objectively measured improvement.
CONCLUSION: Ear syringing improved hearing threshold in a substantial proportion of patients. An even larger proportion reported an improvement in symptoms. It was not possible to predict which patients would benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12434959      PMCID: PMC1314442     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  8 in total

Review 1.  Cerumen: its fascination and clinical importance: a review.

Authors:  H C Hanger; G P Mulley
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Cerumen removal--current challenges.

Authors:  M Grossan
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 1.697

Review 3.  Cerumen management: professional issues and techniques.

Authors:  P L Wilson; R J Roeser
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Ruminations upon cerumen: dry vs wet; Indian vs Caucasian.

Authors:  J B Gregg
Journal:  S D J Med       Date:  1985-05

5.  Cerumen impaction in the elderly.

Authors:  J A Meador
Journal:  J Gerontol Nurs       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 1.254

6.  A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persistent earwax in general practice.

Authors:  J A Eekhof; G H de Bock; S Le Cessie; M P Springer
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Ear wax removal: a survey of current practice.

Authors:  J F Sharp; J A Wilson; L Ross; R M Barr-Hamilton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-12-01

8.  Predictors of daily assessed hearing aid use and hearing capability using visual analogue scales.

Authors:  G Andersson; A Palmkvist; L Melin; S Arlinger
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1996-02
  8 in total
  10 in total

1.  Risk management in general practice.

Authors:  Andrew Spooner
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Personpower planning.

Authors:  David Hannay
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  War or health?--humanitarian crisis worsens in war-torn Congo.

Authors:  Sally Hargreaves; Eva Van Beek; Luc Nicolas
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Foreign bodies in the ear: a simple technique for removal analysed in vitro.

Authors:  S Kumar; M Kumar; T Lesser; G Banhegyi
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.740

Review 5.  Ear wax.

Authors:  George G G Browning
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2008-01-25

Review 6.  [Complication rate of out-patient removal of ear wax: systematic review of the literature].

Authors:  G Schmiemann; C Kruschinski
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 7.  Ear wax.

Authors:  Tony Wright
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2015-03-04

Review 8.  The effectiveness of topical preparations for the treatment of earwax: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher Hand; Ian Harvey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  A systematic review of remote otological assessment using video-otoscopy over the past 10 years: reliability and applications.

Authors:  Christopher Metcalfe; Jameel Muzaffar; Linda Orr; Christopher Coulson
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-01-24       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Measuring Earwax Cortisol Concentration using a non-stressful sampling method.

Authors:  Andres Herane-Vives; Lorena Ortega; Rodrigo Sandoval; Allan H Young; Anthony Cleare; Susana Espinoza; Alexander Hayes; Jan Benöhr
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-11-02
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.