Ear drops for the removal of ear wax
ABSTRACT
Background.
Problems caused by the accumulation of wax (cerumen) is one of the most common reasons for people to present to general practitioners with ear problems. Treatment for this condition often involves the use of wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) to disperse the cerumen, reducing the need for, or to facilitate syringing, but no consensus about the effectiveness of various cerumenolytics used.
Purpose.
To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) to remove wax telinga.Kami looking Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Registration Exam; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2008 edition 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE , CINAHL, ISI Proceedings, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional resources for published trials and not dipublikasikan.Tanggal most recent search was April 2008.
Selection criteria.
We identify all randomized controlled trials in which a cerumenolytic compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cerumenolytics participants by blocking or impacted ear wax, and where the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance from the external canal to make further mechanical clearance is not necessary (primary outcome measure) declared or accounted for.
Data collection and analysis.
Both authors reviewed all retrieved trials and inclusion criteria applied independently.
The main result.
Nine trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all, 679 participants received one of 11 different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatment with no treatment, three active treatments compared with water or a 'placebo' a saline, and all nine trials compared two or more active treatment. Eight trials included syringing as a whole sekunder.Secara intervention, the results are convincing. The majority of comparisons showed no differences among the treatments. Meta-analysis of two high-quality trials that support statistical difference triethanolamine polypeptide of saline in preventing the need for syringing, but no other significant differences between treatments.
In three trials of high to medium quality, no difference was found between the effectiveness of ear drops either sodium bicarbonate, chlorbutanol , triethanolamine polypeptide oleate condensate or liquid sodium docusate versus sterile water or a 'placebo' salt.
One trial of moderate methodological quality found in all three treatment - sodium bicarbonate ear drops, sterile water chlorbutanol and - significantly better than the same treatment to prevent the need syringing. None of the higher quality trial showed the superiority of one agent over another in direct comparison.
Conclusion.
ABSTRACT
Background.
Problems caused by the accumulation of wax (cerumen) is one of the most common reasons for people to present to general practitioners with ear problems. Treatment for this condition often involves the use of wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) to disperse the cerumen, reducing the need for, or to facilitate syringing, but no consensus about the effectiveness of various cerumenolytics used.
Purpose.
To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) to remove wax telinga.Kami looking Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Registration Exam; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2008 edition 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE , CINAHL, ISI Proceedings, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional resources for published trials and not dipublikasikan.Tanggal most recent search was April 2008.
Selection criteria.
We identify all randomized controlled trials in which a cerumenolytic compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cerumenolytics participants by blocking or impacted ear wax, and where the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance from the external canal to make further mechanical clearance is not necessary (primary outcome measure) declared or accounted for.
Data collection and analysis.
Both authors reviewed all retrieved trials and inclusion criteria applied independently.
The main result.
Nine trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all, 679 participants received one of 11 different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatment with no treatment, three active treatments compared with water or a 'placebo' a saline, and all nine trials compared two or more active treatment. Eight trials included syringing as a whole sekunder.Secara intervention, the results are convincing. The majority of comparisons showed no differences among the treatments. Meta-analysis of two high-quality trials that support statistical difference triethanolamine polypeptide of saline in preventing the need for syringing, but no other significant differences between treatments.
In three trials of high to medium quality, no difference was found between the effectiveness of ear drops either sodium bicarbonate, chlorbutanol , triethanolamine polypeptide oleate condensate or liquid sodium docusate versus sterile water or a 'placebo' salt.
One trial of moderate methodological quality found in all three treatment - sodium bicarbonate ear drops, sterile water chlorbutanol and - significantly better than the same treatment to prevent the need syringing. None of the higher quality trial showed the superiority of one agent over another in direct comparison.
Conclusion.
Exams have been heterogeneous and generally low or medium quality, making it difficult to offer definitive recommendations about the effectiveness cerumenolytics to relieve symptoms of ear wax. Use of any drops seems to be better than no treatment, but not sure whether one type of drop is better than another. Future trials should be of high methodological quality, have large sample sizes, and compare both oil and water-based solvent-based with placebo, no treatment or both.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar