Does the EarPopper ® device improve hearing outcomes in children with persistent otitis media with effusion? A randomised single‐blinded controlled trial
Abstract
Objective To provide an independent evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the EarPopper(®) in improving hearing outcomes in children with otitis media with effusion (OME) and reducing the ventilation tube insertion rate. Study design Randomised single-blinded controlled trial. Setting The Ear Nose and Throat Department of a district general hospital (Heatherwood and Wexham Park). Participants and methods Twenty-nine children aged between 4 and 11 years diagnosed with persistent OME lasting at least 3 months with an average hearing of 25 dBHL or worse in the better ear were randomised to a treatment or control group for 7 weeks using random computer-generated codes. Syndromic children, children with developmental delay, previous grommets and cleft palate were excluded. The audiologists were blinded at the final post-treatment audiogram. Results After the seven-week period, the mean improvement in air conduction across all frequencies was 10.9 dBHL in the treatment group (P Conclusion Our study shows that the EarPopper(®) is a safe, effective treatment option for children with hearing loss from persistent OME, and it reduces the rate of ventilation tube insertion. More studies with larger sample sizes are required to support our findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Banigo 2016, average compliance with autoinflation was 94%.
“94% on average”
From Autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children (2023) · cites this paper as Banigo 2016
Cites
Autoinflation for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion
Perera, R., Glasziou, P. P., Heneghan, C. J., McLellan, J., & Williamson, I. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006285.pub2 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Autoinflation for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children
Webster, K. E., Mulvaney, C. A., Galbraith, K., Rana, M., Marom, T., Daniel, M., Venekamp, R. P., Schilder, A. G., & MacKeith, S. (2023) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015253.pub2 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Banigo, A., Hunt, A., Rourke, T., Whiteside, O., & Aldren, C.
- Affiliations
- Wexham Park Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Banigo, A.
- ORCID
- Banigo, A.
- Venue
- Clinical Otolaryngology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-01-07
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-65
- ISSN
- 0307-7772 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-4478
- 1749-4486
- OpenAlex
- W1925171591
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Otolaryngology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Ear and Head Tumors
- Keywords
- otitis media with effusion, hearing outcomes, air conduction hearing, tympanostomy tube insertion, children, hearing loss, device compliance
- MeSH terms
- Audiology, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Hearing, Humans, Male, Otitis Media with Effusion, Safety, Treatment Outcome, Hearing Loss, Validation Studies as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review