Cited by 1Ear Surgery and Otitis MediaSinusitis and nasal conditionsHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Topical nasal steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children

Beigh, Zafarullah, Lattoo, ManzoorAhmad, Yousuf, Aamir, Pampori, RafiqAhmad·2013·Indian Journal of Otology

Abstract

Background: In the present study, otitis media with effusion (OME) or glue ear, is serous or mucoid, but not mucopurulent, fluid in the middle ear. Children usually present with hearing impairment and speech problems. Hearing impairment is usually mild and often identified when parents express concern regarding their child's behavior, performance at school, or language development. There are many medical treatment options in OME such as systemic antibiotics, oral or topical steroids, anti-histaminics, and decongestants however, there actual role and efficacy is controversial. Topical nasal steroids are one of the better treatment options because of its fewer side-effects compared to oral steroids. Objective: To assess effectiveness of topical nasal steroids (mometosone nasal spray) in hearing loss associated with OME in children. Materials and Methods: One hundred and six children of age group 2-8 years with otoscopy and tympanometry diagnosed cases of OME were enrolled for this study and randomly allocated into two groups, children in the study group were treated with topical nasal steroids (mometosone nasal spray) for period of 3 weeks and children in control group (no treatment) were observed without treatment. On a total of 106 children, 14 lost to follow-up and were excluded from study and the rest of 92 children were studied in this study. Outcome of treatment was measured with closure of air bone gape on pure tone audiometery done after 3 weeks of treatment, 3 weeks af…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/0971-7749.117474

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Beigh 2013 reported a significant difference in final hearing threshold, with mean air-bone gap 8 dB for steroids versus 20 dB for no treatment.

    “Nonetheless, the authors reported a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the two groups, with a mean air-bone gap of 8 dB for the group receiving steroids, compared to 20 dB for those receiving no treatment.”
  • Beigh 2013 at nine weeks found no longer a significant difference in final hearing threshold, with air-bone gap 18 dB in steroids versus 24 dB in no treatment (P > 0.05; 1 study, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

    “A er nine weeks of follow-up, there was no longer a significant difference between the two groups, with an air-bone gap of 18 dB in those receiving steroids, compared to 24 dB in the no treatment group (P > 0.05; 1 study, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beigh, Z., Lattoo, M., Yousuf, A., & Pampori, R.
Affiliations
Government Medical College (IN)
Corresponding author
Beigh, Zafarullah
Venue
Indian Journal of Otology
Publisher
Medknow
Published
2013
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
132
ISSN
0971-7749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019143412
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Indian Journal of Otology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
otitis media with effusion, topical nasal steroids, hearing loss, air-bone gap, children, middle ear effusion, corticosteroid tapering

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