Cholesteatoma and family history: An international survey.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
To explore the relative frequency of a family history of cholesteatoma in patients with known cholesteatoma, and whether bilateral disease or earlier diagnosis is more likely in those with a family history. Associations between cleft lip or palate and bilateral disease and age of diagnosis were also explored.
DESIGN
An online survey of patients with diagnosed cholesteatoma was conducted between October 2017 and April 2019.
PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of patients recruited from two UK clinics and self-selected respondents recruited internationally via social media.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Side of cholesteatoma, whether respondents had any family history of cholesteatoma, age of diagnosis and personal or family history of cleft lip or palate were recorded.
RESULTS
Of 857 respondents, 89 (10.4%) reported a positive family history of cholesteatoma. Respondents with a family history of cholesteatoma were more likely to have bilateral cholesteatoma (P = .001, odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-3.43), but there was no difference in the age of diagnosis (P = .23). Those with a history of cleft lip or palate were not more likely to have bilateral disease (P = .051, OR 2.71, CI 1.00-7.38), and there was no difference in age of diagnosis (P = .11).
CONCLUSION
The relatively high proportion of respondents that reported a family history of cholesteatoma offers supporting evidence of heritability in cholesteatoma. The use of social media to recruit respondents to this survey means that the results cannot be generalised to other populations with cholesteatoma. Further population-based research is suggested to determine the heritability of cholesteatoma.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.