The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to describe characteristics of patients diagnosed with patulous Eustachian tube (PET) using the Diagnostic Criteria proposed by Japan Otological Society, and to evaluate the efficiency of objective tests to determine patent Eustachian tube. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
SUBJECTS: A retrospective survey of medical records in Sen-En Rifu Hospital identified 78 ears of 56 patients with "Definite PET" diagnosed by the JOS Diagnostic Criteria between January 2017 and December 2017.
METHOD: Initial diagnosis, aural symptoms (voice autophony, aural fullness and breathing autophony), tubal obstruction procedures (posture change and pharyngeal orifice obstruction) and objective findings (tympanic membrane movement, Tubo-Tympano-Aerodynamic Graphy (TTAG) and sonotubometry) were evaluated. In addition, sonotubometry with postural change (Ohta's method), sitting CT and a newly devised PHI-10 score were also examined.
RESULTS: Voice autophony, aural fullness, and breathing autophony were observed in 93.6%, 87.2%, 78.2%, respectively. In 91% of the ears, PET symptoms improved by postural change from sitting to the lying / forward-bending position. Synchronous movement of the TM upon respiration was observed in 69.1% of the ears. Positive findings of TTAG were observed in 75.6% of ears. Positive findings of sonotubometry were found in 55.1% of ears. Sonotubometry with postural change (Ohta's method), when the cut-off value of over 10dB was used, was positive in 45.2% of ears. Newly devised PHI-10 score representing severity of subjective symptoms classifying patients into no handicap, mild handicap, moderate handicap and severe handicap were observed in 12.2%, 10.8%, 18.9% and 58.1% of ears, respectively. The evaluation of the extent of patency of the ET by sitting CT indicated completely open, closed-short, and closed-long, in 68.6%, 11.4% and 21.4% of ears, respectively. Compared to the closed group, the completely open group had a significantly higher frequency of positive breathing autophony, positive sonotubometry, and positive Ohta's method.
CONCLUSION: The characteristics of main symptoms and the efficiency of various tests in PET diagnosis were analyzed based on data obtained from "Definite PET" patients diagnosed by the JOS Diagnostic Criteria. The greater the availability of tests to evaluate PET, the greater the opportunities to diagnose "Definite PET". In particular, tests measuring pressure transmission between the nasopharynx and middle ear, such as TM observation and TTAG, are more sensitive than sonotubometry measuring sound transmission.

Introduction

The Eustachian tube (ET) is normally closed but opens temporarily to fulfill a diverse range of functions such as ventilation, clearance and protection of the middle ear cavity. Patulous Eustachian tube (PET) patients suffer from symptoms such as aural fullness and autophony of voice or breathing sounds due to an abnormally open ET [1, 2]. The common cause of PET is weight loss [3, 4]. Other causes of PET include pregnancy, oral contraceptives [2], radiation therapy, sectioning of the trigeminal nerve [5], tonsillectomy, and adenoidectomy. PET patients are usually observed to have tympanic membrane (TM) movements during ipsilateral nasal breathing. To diagnose PET, several objective and subjective findings, such as medical history, physical examination and ET function tests, are combined because there is no single test available to evaluate ET function accurately [6, 7]. For this reason, each institution defined PET according to their own criteria and widely accepted diagnostic criteria for PET has not been established until recently, when the Otological Society of Japan (JOS) Diagnostic Criteria for Patulous Eustachian Tube was published (Table 1). This criteria use the terms “Definite PET” and “Possible PET” [7], where “Definite PET” is defined as cases of PET with 100% certainty and “Possible PET” is defined as cases with possibility but less certainty. Although JOS has developed the useful criteria in the diagnosis of PET, there has not been any report documenting the characteristics of patients diagnosed by the criteria.

Table 1

The diagnostic criteria for patulous eustachian tube proposed by Japan Otological Society (JOS).

The diagnostic criteria of PET by the Japan Otological Society

1. There are subjective symptoms

One or more of the following symptoms included: voice autophony, a sense of aural fullness, and breathing autophony

2. Tubal obstruction procedures (A or B) clearly improves symptoms

A. Posture change to the lying / lordotic position

B. Pharyngeal orifice obstruction treatment (swab, gel, etc.)

3. There is at least one of the following objective findings of a patent E-tube:

A. Respiratory fluctuation of the tympanic membrane

B. Variations of external auditory meatus pressure synchronized with nasopharyngeal pressure

C. The sonotubometry shows (1) the test tone sound pressure level less than 100 dB or (2) an open plateau pattern.

If all three criteria are met (1+2+3), the diagnosis is “Definite PET”, whereas if only two criteria are met (1+2 or 1+3), the diagnosis is “Possible PET”.

This study was conducted to investigate the usefulness of this criteria by exploring the characteristic of patients diagnosed as “Definite PET” by JOS Diagnostic Criteria for PET.

Materials and methods

Clinical examination

Criteria of 1 and 2A were detected by diagnostic interview (Table 1).

Criteria of 2B was conducted when 2A was negative.

Criteria of 3A was detected using otomicroscopy and endoscopy in sitting position. The TM movements during ipsilateral nasal breathing was defined as positive.

Criteria of 3B was detected by Tubo-Tympano-Aerodynamic Graphy (TTAG) [8]. The TTAG and sonotubometry were performed using a commercially available machine (JK05A; Rion, Tokyo, Japan). Pressure changes in the external auditory canal (EAC) and the nasopharynx were simultaneously recorded using the manometry mode of the TTAG. Positive findings of TTAG were defined as an EAC pressure change synchronous with that in the ipsilateral nasopharynx [9], and these findings reflect the movement of the TM upon respiration or sniffing (Fig 1).

Fig 1

A typical example of TTAG measurement in a case of PET.

The TTAG can objectively record synchronous changes in the pressure induced by movement of the tympanic membrane upon respiration or sniffing. Pressure changes were evaluated as pressure transmission ratio: (pressure b: EAC pressure) / (pressure a: pharyngeal pressure). EAC indicates external auditory canal; TTAG, tubotympanoaerodynamography.

Criteria 3C used sonotubometry [10]. Sonotubometry automatically creates the input sound pressure level (SPL) whereby the acoustic signal comprises a 7 kHz octave band noise at the nostril, which enables pre-set level 50 dB SPL output in the EAC [11]. Positive findings of PET were defined as a lowering of probe tone SPL to below 100 dB (Fig 2 left) or a so-called “open plateau pattern” obtained when the ET opens upon swallowing and remains open thereafter (Fig 2 right).

Fig 2

(a) Typical examples of sonotubometric measurements in cases of PET. Lowering of the probe tone SPL to less than 100dB (Left: circle). The ET opens when swallowing and remains continuously open thereafter (Right: gray arrows). ET indicates Eustachian tube; SPL, sound pressure level. (b) A typical example of sonotubometric measurements with postural change in a case of PET. Sound attenuations from the speaker to the microphone in the sitting and forward-bending positions. The level difference was observed as a dynamic change of probe tone SPL in response to the postural change from the forward-bending to sitting positions. EAC indicates external auditory canal.

Subjective PET symptoms evaluation scales

The patulous Eustachian tube handicap inventory-10 (PHI-10) scale was devised to evaluate the severity of subjective PET symptoms [12] (Table 2).

Table 2

Patulous Eustachian tube handicap inventory-10 (PHI-10).

No	Question	yes: 4	sometimes: 2	no: 0
1	Because of your symptom is it difficult for you to concentrate?
2	Does the loudness of your symptom make it difficult for you to hear people?
3	Does your symptom make you angry?
4	Do you feel as though you cannot escape your symptom?
5	Does your symptom interfere with your ability to enjoy social activities?
6	Because of your symptom do you feel frustrated?
7	Does your symptom interfere with your job or household responsibilities?
8	Do you feel that your symptom has placed stress on your relationships with members of your family and friends?
9	Do you find it difficult to focus your attention away from your symptom and on to other things?
10	Does your symptom make you feel anxious?

Sonotubometry with postural change (Ohta’s method)

Sonotubometry with postural change (Ohta’s method) was previously reported as follows [11, 13]. Sonotubometry with the postural change from the forward-bending to the sitting positions evaluate the change in sound pressure transmitted from nasopharynx in monitored level at the EAC during the postural change. The acoustic transfer function via the ET was compared in the sitting and forward-bending positions (Fig 2B). Changes in probe tone SPL exceeding 10dB was regarded as a positive finding of PET.

Morphologic evaluation by sitting 3-D CT

The 3-D cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Accuitomo; Morita, Kyoto, Japan) in the sitting position was used as previously reported [14-16]. The multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) technique was used to reconstruct 1-mm-thick gapless images, parallel and perpendicular to the ET long axis. The opened section of the ET lumen was revealed as a hyperlucent area. The closed section of ET lumen was measured and ears were assigned according to their open length of the ET, to one of three groups as follows: completely open group (Fig 3. left), closed-short (3mm or less) group (Fig 3. middle), and closed-long (longer than 3mm) group (Fig 3. right).

Fig 3

Representative CT images (axial view) in patients with PET.

Left: completely open. Middle: closed-short (3mm or less). Right: closed-long (longer than 3mm). White arrows indicate ET open. Black arrows indicate ET closed. CT indicates computed tomography; ET, Eustachian tube.

Statistical analysis

Summary statistics were performed for patient demographics, symptoms, methods of diagnosis for PET, and clinical examination findings.

Mann-Whitney's U test was performed using SPSS version 20 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences with a corrected p-value of less than 0.05 were considered significant. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

All procedures of the present study were approved by the ethical committee of Sen-En Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB). All parts of the present study were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (1991).

Results

Patients

A prospective survey of medical records in Sen-En Rifu Hospital identified 56 patients, (21 male and 35 female subjects aged 12 to 88 years, average 49.3±19.0 years), 78 ears (bilateral ear: 22 cases, right ear: 14 cases and left ear: 20 cases) with definitive PET between January 2017 and December 2017.

Timing of diagnosis as “Definite PET”

Seventy-one of 78 ears (91.0%) were diagnosed as “Definite PET” at the first consultation in our department (Table 2). The remaining ears were initially diagnosed as “Possible PET” and diagnosed as “Definite PET” at following visits.

Subjective findings

Voice autophony, a sense of aural fullness, and breathing autophony were observed in 73 (93.6%), 68 (87.2%), 61 (78.2%) ears, respectively. Fifty-three (67.9%) ears had all the three symptoms (Table 3).

Table 3

Summary of the clinical features of patients.

		Total
		Total	Positive	%
Diagnosis of PET at first consultation		78	71	91.0%
Aural symptoms
	Voice autophony	78	73	93.6%
	Aural fullness	78	68	87.2%
	Breathing autophony	78	61	78.2%
Tubal obstruction procedures
	Posture change	78	71	91.0%
	Pharyngeal orifice obstruction	7	7	100.0%
Objective findings of patent E-tube
	TM movement	68	47	69.1%
	TTAG	78	60	76.9%
	Sonotubometry	78	43	55.1%
	below 100dB	78	35	44.9%
	plateau type	78	11	14.1%
Other objective findings of patent E-tube
	Ohta method
	upper 10dB	62	28	45.2%
	Sitting 3-D CT
	completely open	70	48	68.6%

Tubal obstruction procedures

Seventy-one (91.0%) ears reported improvement of PET symptoms by postural change from sitting or upright to lying or forward-bending position (Table 3). In the remaining 7 ears, the PET symptoms were remarkably alleviated by pharyngeal tubal orifice obstruction treatment.

Objective findings

Respiratory fluctuation of the TM was observed in 47 of 68 ears (69.1%). Positive findings of TTAG were observed in 60 of 78 (76.9%) (Fig 4A). Positive findings of sonotubometry, a probe tone SPL less than 100 dB, was found in 35 of 78 ears (44.9%) (Fig 4B) and an open plateau pattern in 11 of 78 ears (14.1%), respectively (Table 3). As three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern, 43 of 78 ears (55.1%) were judged positive in sonotubometry. In sixty-eight ears in which all the three tests (TM movement, TTAG, sonotubometry) were conducted, all three were positive in 20 of 68 ears (29.4%) (Fig 5). In the 68 ears, TM movement, TTAG and sonotubometry were observed as single positive objective findings in 13.2%, 16.2% and 1.5%, respectively (Fig 5).

Fig 4

(a) Summary of results from TTAG. The vertical axis indicates the ratio of EAC / Nasopharynx: %. EAC indicates external auditory canal. (b) Summary of results from sonotubometry. The vertical axis indicates the probe tone SPL (dB). Positive results were found in 55.1%. (c) Summary of findings from Ohta’s method. The vertical axis indicates the change of probe tone SPL in response to the postural change from the forward-bending to sitting positions (dB). Positive results were found in 45.2%. (d) Summary of results from PHI-10. The vertical axis indicates the score of PHI-10.

Fig 5

A Venn diagram of TM movement, TTAG and sonotubometry.

A Venn diagram of three objective tests (TM movement, TTAG and sonotubometry) was drawn from 68 ears of “Definite PET” in which all the three tests were performed.

Sonotubometry with postual change (Ohta’s method)

Sixty-two ears were assessed by Ohta’s method (Fig 4C). When the cut-off value of this method was defined as a probe tone SPL exceeding 10 dB, 28 (45.2%) were positive (Table 3).

Seventy-four ears were evaluated by PHI-10. No handicap (0–8), mild handicap (10–16), moderate handicap (18–24) and severe handicap (26–40) were observed in 9 (12.2%), 8 (10.8%), 14 (18.9%) and 43 (58.1%), respectively (Fig 4D).

Sitting 3-D CT

Findings of the sitting 3-D CT in 70 ears were evaluated and classified into completely open group, closed-short (3mm or less) group, and closed-long (longer than 3mm) group, and each group consisted of 48 (68.6%) (Table 2), 8 (11.4%) and 14 (20.0%) ears, respectively. The incidence of breathing autophony, positive findings of sonotubometry and Ohta’s method was significantly higher in the completely open group than closed group (Table 4).

Table 4

Clinical features of completely open and closed group according to CT.

		CT completely open			CT closed			T test
		Total	Positive	%	Total	Positive	%
Diagnosis of PET at first consultation		48	48	100.0%	22	22	100.0%
Aural symptoms
	Voice autophony	48	46	95.8%	22	19	86.4%	0.12
	Aural fullness	48	41	85.4%	22	21	95.5%	0.11
	Breathing autophony	48	43	89.6%	22	14	63.6%	< 0.01
Tubal obstruction procedures
	Posture change	48	45	93.8%	22	18	81.8%	0.10
	Pharyngeal orifice obstruction	3	3	100.0%	4	4	100.0%
Objective findings of patent E-tube
	TM movement	42	32	76.2%	18	10	55.6%	0.07
	TTAG	48	38	79.2%	22	16	72.7%	0.29
	Sonotubometry	48	34	70.8%	22	4	18.2%	< 0.01
	below 100dB	48	31	64.6%	22	0	0%	< 0.01
	plateau type	48	5	10.4%	22	4	18.2%	0.21
Other objective findings of patent E-tube
	Ohta method
	upper 10dB	36	22	61.1%	18	5	27.8%	< 0.01

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed characteristics of patients diagnosed as “Definite PET” in JOS Diagnostic Criteria for PET. A patient with PET is best diagnosed through a well-structured examination including patient history, physical examination with thorough observation of movements of the TM and objective findings using several testing equipment [1, 17].

The JOS Diagnostic Criteria for PET was defined to avoid any contamination of “Definite PET” with uncertain cases, so that “Definite PET” accurately reflects PET [7]. Possible PET was intended to minimize the number of cases that could be accidentally excluded even in the presence of some suspected findings because most patients report that their PET symptoms are intermittent, even in severe cases [6].

In this study, 71 out of 78 (91%) ears were diagnosed as “Definite PET” at the first consultation and only 7 ears (9%) required more than one visit before reaching the diagnosis of “Definite PET”. Such high incidence of initial accurate diagnosis rate may be due to the fact that our institute received many referrals of intractable PET from other clinics from all over Japan.

Posture change

Bothersome PET symptoms are usually relieved by posture change to the lying or forward-bending position. Ward et al. reported that 65.3% of patients experienced relief with the head in a dependent position [18]. However, in some cases, PET symptoms did not improve by these posture changes and the TM movements were confirmed even in the recumbent position. The JOS Diagnostic Criteria recommend pharyngeal orifice obstruction treatment using swab, gel, etc. in order not to miss these cases. In this study, seven cases (9.0%) needed pharyngeal orifice obstruction treatment to confirm the diagnosis of “Definite PET”, because they did not report improvement in symptoms by postural change.

Voice autophony, a sense of aural fullness, and breathing autophony were observed in 93.6%, 87.2%, 78.2% of ears, respectively. Our previous survey in 135 different cases of patients indicated those incidences as 90%, 84%, 65%, respectively. This previous study included both “Definite PET” and “Possible PET” patients. These results seem to suggest that “Definite PET” patients have a tendency to incur a higher ratio of breathing autophony.

In addition, PHI-10 was used for evaluation of subjective severity of PET. We have previously reported that this scoring system is suitable for evaluating severity of PET and the efficacy of treatment, provided that the diagnosis of PET is certain [12].

In the JOS Diagnostic Criteria, respiratory fluctuation of the TM, TTAG and sonotubometry were recognized as objective findings of patent Eustachian tube. The former two tests are similar in that both tests monitor pressure transmission from the nasopharynx to the middle ear, by imposing pressure change through respiration or sniffing, and evaluate its effect on the middle ear pressure [8]. Sonotubometry evaluates sound transmission from the nasopharynx to the external auditory meatus [10, 19]. Previous study indicate that definite PET can be diagnosed if sound attenuation from the nostril to EAC is less than 100 dB [20]. It is enhanced in patients with PET, demonstrating lowering of the probe tone SPL or open plateau pattern. Positive findings of respiratory fluctuation of the TM was observed in 69.1% of ears, while that of TTAG in 76.9% of ears, and that of sonotubometry in 55.1% of ears. A positive ratio of TM observation and TTAG were higher than sonotubometry in this study. Similar results were obtained in our previous study where 72.6% were positive in TTAG, and 41.5% were positive in sonotubometry based on the JOS Diagnosis Criteria announced in 2012 [14], which is same as the current Diagnostic Criteria except that the latter added pharyngeal orifice obstruction treatment as a tubal obstruction procedure and the probe tone SPL less than 100 dB as a positive finding of sonotubometry. Moreover, a combination of respiratory fluctuation of the TM and TTAG can detect PET in 98.5% of ears (Fig 5). These results suggest that evaluation of pressure transmission such as TM observation and TTAG is more sensitive than that of sound transmission represented by sonotubometry. However, it does not disregard the usefulness of sonotubometry. Previous study has revealed that probe tone SPL of sonotubometry could be more useful than TTAG to predict the morphological severity of PET [9]. As such, all ears with a probe tone lowered to a level less than 100 dB SPL in sonotubometry were included in the CT completely open group in this study to corroborate the findings.

In this study, it is evident that ET testing apparatus is efficacious. However, if we solely depend on testing apparatus without observing the respiratory fluctuation of the TM, 13.2% of cases would have remained as “Possible PET” due to the lack of objective findings of a patent ET. This result suggests that observation of TM is indispensable for PET diagnosis.

The TTAG is widely used for PET diagnosis in Japan. However, there is little data supporting its use in English literature. Recently, Smith et al. investigated the diagnostic value of various tests for ET function and stated that TTAG is recommended for use both in intact and perforated TMs, as it was found to be comparison with TM observation, sonotubometry, impedance and tubomanometry in sensitivity, specificity and ease of use, albeit in 12 cases [21]. Our results highlighted the usefulness of TTAG. Although TTAG was performed with careful attention to exclude such artifacts, further studies to validate the accuracy of TTAG measurements are needed.

Recently, Ohta’s method [11, 13], a modification of sonotubometry, performed during postural change from the forward-bending to the sitting positions was investigated. This method is based on the fact that PET symptoms are usually relieved or resolved by postural change from sitting or standing to recumbent or head-down positions. If the positive findings of Otha’s method are added to the sonotubometry results, positive finding in sonotubometry would have increased by 10 ears and the positive ratio of sonotubometry would rise from 55.1% to 67.9% in this study. This new method of sonotubometry could contribute to increasing the rate of accurate diagnosis especially in situations where TTAG is not available.

Sitting 3-D CT is useful in the diagnosis of PET as shown in earlier studies [14–16, 22, 23]. The completely open group, which is considered to be as infallible PET, was significantly higher than the other groups in terms of incidence of positive breathing autophony, positive sonotubometry and positive Ohta’s method. The sitting 3-D CT of the temporal bone is very useful because it helps in the diagnosis for both PET and superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS) in the same examination, since the two diseases are similar in symptoms and its differentiation is mandatory [6, 24, 25]. However, as the sitting 3-D CT has not been widely used in many clinics to date, it may be too early to discuss its inclusion into the diagnostic criteria for PET.

Limitations of this study

The number of the patients in this study is relatively small to represent characteristics of PET. Moreover, patients with relatively severe PET visit our department to seek treatment including Kobayashi Plug insertion [26, 27] and injection of the ET orifice [28]. A multicenter study will be necessary to overcome these limitations.

Conclusions

The characteristics of main symptoms and the efficiencies of various tests in PET diagnosis were analyzed based on data obtained from “Definite PET” patients diagnosed by the JOS Diagnostic Criteria. The greater the availability of tests to evaluate PET, the greater the opportunities to diagnose “Definite PET”. In particular, tests measuring pressure transmission between the nasopharynx and middle ear, such as TM observation and TTAG, are more sensitive than sonotubometry measuring sound transmission.

Summary of the clinical features of patients (raw data).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Clinical features of completely open and closed group according to CT (raw data).

1. CT completely open, 2. CT closed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Summary of results from TTAG, sonotubometry, Ohta method and PHI-10.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-22143

The characteristic of Patulous Eustachian Tube Patients diagnosed by the JOS Diagnostic Criteria

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ikeda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the reviewers' comments below, in particular with regard to prior studies looking at similar symptoms.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jennifer Alyono

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K09366 and the Project Promoting Clinical Trials for Development of New Drugs and Medical Devices (Japan Medical Association) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development, AMED.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'No'

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

'No'

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study has merit for reporting on characteristic of PET patients as diagnosed using the Otological Society of Japan Diagnostic Criteria, which was not done before. However, a study done recently by Smith, 2018, albeit with a smaller number of subjects has a more detailed analysis of the diagnostic criteria used in their evaluation.

I believe figures 5,6,8,9 can be all combined into one with 4 subsection

Figure 2 and 3 can also be combined with subsections

Did your study have any inclusion/exclusion criteria?

Abstract page 3

Line 13 – define TTAG

Line 17 . In ninety-one percent of the ears… -> In 91% of the ears…

Line 18 ….lying / lordotic position… -> do you mean supine? (lordotic is not often used within English literature, please correct to supine within the manuscript)

Methods page 8

Line 14 Criteria 3C use -> Criteria 3C used

Page 9 Changes in probe tone SPL exceeding 10dB was regarded as

a positive finding of PET – was this something that you defined as significant or previously defined and accepted as a significant finding,

Line 16 define CT

Results

Page 12

Line 10 As the three ears exhibited both positive findings… what is meant by “three ears”

Page 13

It is a very interesting finding that 43 (58.1%) had severe handicap

Page 15

Line 13 please change annoying to bothersome

Page 16

Line 14 nostril to EACl - nostril to EAC

References

Please remove number 5 as it is repeated twice

Figure 4

Closed short is not very definite imaging, maybe adding a bracket to show where the region of closed portion of ET is being evaluated

Reviewer #2: Thank you for this interesting and timely review on an important patient condition. Your study is well designed to address the question at hand within the limitations you mention, namely the high likelihood of diagnosing PET in your study population based on the type of referrals your center receives. With that said, this paper contributes to our body of knowledge by detailing diagnostic techniques and criteria, and is especially valuable in the comparison of various diagnostic modalities.

Several comments and requested clarifications below could strengthen this paper.

Page 8, Line 4: How was 2B conductive specifically?

Page 8, Line 5,6: Presume that any movement of the TM is defined as positive? Please clarify.

Page 9, Line 9,10: Please clarify in the text what is being monitored at the level of the EAC (sound transmitted from the nasopharynx?)

Page 12, Line 10-12: Three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern?

Page 14, line 10-13: Any correlation between these delayed “Definite PET” and severity of symptoms? Perhaps less because they were intermittent?

Page 14, line 13: Consider, “PET symptoms ARE intermittent”.

Page 14, line 17: Consider, “out institute received.

Page 15, line 3: Consider a more formal term in lieu of “Annoying” when referring to PET symptoms.

Page 15, line 2-11: Largely restating results. Is there any significance or specific characteristics to the patients that did not improve with postural changes that clinicians should be monitoring for?

Page 16, line 14: EAC1?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Pedrom C. Sioshansi, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Oct 2019

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1

We wish to express our deep appreciation to the reviewer.

I believe figures 5,6,8,9 can be all combined into one with 4 subsections

Response:

We have modified as your suggestion.

Figure 2 and 3 can also be combined with subsections

Response:

We have modified as your suggestion.

Did your study have any inclusion/exclusion criteria?

Response: All patient diagnosed by JOS criteria were included. There was not exclusion criteria.

Abstract page 3

Line 13 – define TTAG

Response: We have defined as follows “Tubo-Tympano-Aerodynamic Graphy (TTAG)”.

Line 17 . In ninety-one percent of the ears… -> In 91% of the ears…

Response: We have changed “In ninety-one percent of the ears” to “In 91% of the ears”.

Line 18 ….lying / lordotic position… -> do you mean supine? (lordotic is not often used within English literature, please correct to supine within the manuscript)

Response: “Lordotic” means bending forward.

We have modified in the text.

Methods page 8

Line 14 Criteria 3C use -> Criteria 3C used

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

Page 9 Changes in probe tone SPL exceeding 10dB was regarded as

a positive finding of PET – was this something that you defined as significant or previously defined and accepted as a significant finding,

Response: There have been no report to define and accepted report as a significant findings. Our results could contribute to define the significant findings.

Line 16 define CT

Response: We have defined “CT” as “cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)”.

Results

Page 12

Line 10 As the three ears exhibited both positive findings… what is meant by “three ears”

Response: “Three ears” mean that three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern.

We have corrected in the text.

Page 13

It is a very interesting finding that 43 (58.1%) had severe handicap

We wish to express our deep appreciation to the reviewer.

Page 15

Line 13 please change annoying to bothersome

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

Page 16

Line 14 nostril to EACl - nostril to EAC

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

References

Please remove number 5 as it is repeated twice

Response: We have deleted as your suggestion.

Figure 4

Closed short is not very definite imaging, maybe adding a bracket to show where the region of closed portion of ET is being evaluated

Response: We have modified in the figure.

Reviewer #2

We wish to express our deep appreciation to the reviewer.

Page 8, Line 4: How was 2B conductive specifically?

Response: For example, swab is placed or a small amount of gel is injected into pharyngeal orifice through nasal cavity. Improvement of aural symptoms is regarded as positive.

Page 8, Line 5,6: Presume that any movement of the TM is defined as positive? Please clarify.

Response: We have modified as your suggestion.

Page 9, Line 9,10: Please clarify in the text what is being monitored at the level of the EAC (sound transmitted from the nasopharynx?)

Response: We have added the sentence “Pressure changes in the external auditory canal (EAC) and the nasopharynx were simultaneously recorded using the manometry mode of the TTAG.”

Page 12, Line 10-12: Three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern?

Response: “three ears exhibited both positive findings” means “three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern.”

We have added the sentence “As three ears were positive for both probe tone testing and an open plateau pattern,”.

Page 14, line 10-13: Any correlation between these delayed “Definite PET” and severity of symptoms? Perhaps less because they were intermittent?

Response: PHI-10 score of initial“Definite PET” and delayed “Definite PET” are 26.6±11.5 and 16.7±9.77 (p = 0.054), respectively. Delayed type tended to less severity but not significant because of small number of delayed type.

Page 14, line 13: Consider, “PET symptoms ARE intermittent”.

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

Page 14, line 17: Consider, “out institute received.

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

Page 15, line 3: Consider a more formal term in lieu of “Annoying” when referring to PET symptoms.

Response: We have changed “annoying” to “bothersome” as your suggestion.

Page 15, line 2-11: Largely restating results. Is there any significance or specific characteristics to the patients that did not improve with postural changes that clinicians should be monitoring for?

Response: Thank you very much for useful comment. We also are interested in this point. There are only 4 cases in this study. Further study is needed to elucidate this issue.

Page 16, line 14: EAC1?

Response: We have corrected as your suggestion.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers ver3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Dec 2019

The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria

PONE-D-19-22143R1

Dear Dr. Ikeda,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jennifer Alyono

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

16 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-22143R1

The characteristic of patulous eustachian tube patients diagnosed by the JOS diagnostic criteria

Dear Dr. Ikeda:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jennifer Alyono

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE