African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS · 2024
Efficacy of Adenoidectomy versus Tympanostomy on the Otitis Media with Effusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Alamri Abdullah A, Amoodi Hosam A, Alsubaie Shahad A, Alsehly Areej A, Alshuaibi Razan O, Alotaibi Leena A, Almaghrabi Sahar J, Mozahim Sarah F, Mozahim Naif F, Tonkal Albaraa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the current evidence on the efficacy of tympanostomy and adenoidectomy in children with otitis media with effusion in comparison with tympanostomy alone following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published in the literature with no date restrictions. We collected the results of the databases search and removed duplicated studies by Rayyan QCRI and EndNote Software X8. We used an Excel sheet for screening titles and abstracts, full text and data extraction. For quality assessment, we used Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 using the quality assessment table provided in Part 2 and Chapter 8.5, and quantitative data synthesis was done using Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4.
RESULTS: The literature search showed 1510 studies, of which five studies were included in data synthesis. The study measured the effect through number of acute otitis media (AOM) episodes, cumulative number of AOM episodes, siblings with Otitis media (OM), hearing level hearing loss scale of the left, and right ears. The pooled effect estimates showed significant difference between tympanostomy with adenoidectomy versus tympanostomy alone in hearing level hearing loss scale of both ears (SMD -0.17, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.05], P -value=0.005). However, the pooled results were not heterogeneous ( P < 0.25, I2 = 24%).
CONCLUSIONS: Tympanostomy with adenoidectomy improves hearing compared to tympanostomy alone, but both treatments have similar effects on ear infection rates. Further research with larger samples is needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term benefits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies published in the literature with no date restrictions. We collected the results of the databases search and removed duplicated studies by Rayyan QCRI and EndNote Software X8. We used an Excel sheet for screening titles and abstracts, full text and data extraction. For quality assessment, we used Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 using the quality assessment table provided in Part 2 and Chapter 8.5, and quantitative data synthesis was done using Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4.
RESULTS: The literature search showed 1510 studies, of which five studies were included in data synthesis. The study measured the effect through number of acute otitis media (AOM) episodes, cumulative number of AOM episodes, siblings with Otitis media (OM), hearing level hearing loss scale of the left, and right ears. The pooled effect estimates showed significant difference between tympanostomy with adenoidectomy versus tympanostomy alone in hearing level hearing loss scale of both ears (SMD -0.17, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.05], P -value=0.005). However, the pooled results were not heterogeneous ( P < 0.25, I2 = 24%).
CONCLUSIONS: Tympanostomy with adenoidectomy improves hearing compared to tympanostomy alone, but both treatments have similar effects on ear infection rates. Further research with larger samples is needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term benefits.