Combined meatoplasty and canalplasty for intractable chronic otitis externa: Our experience of twenty cases with audiometric and patient‐reported outcomes

Crosbie, Robin; Chin, Andy; Wardrop, Peter

doi:10.1111/coa.12163

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where papers did not fit into easily defined categories or intervention or pathology, it was felt that combining these would only add heterogeneity. Therefore, these eight papers are reported in Table S1 and will not be further analysed …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Hendry

Chin

Swan

et al. 2016

Clinical Otolaryngology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) is a validated, generic patient-recorded outcome measure widely used in otolaryngology to report change in quality of life post-intervention.Objectives of reviewTo date, no systematic review has made (i) a quality assessment of reporting of Glasgow Benefit Inventory outcomes; (ii) a comparison between Glasgow Benefit Inventory outcomes for different interventions and objectives; (iii) an evaluation of subscales in describing the area of benefit; (iv) commented on its value in clinical practice and research.Type of reviewSystematic review.Search strategy‘Glasgow Benefit Inventory’ and ‘GBI’ were used as keywords to search for published, unpublished and ongoing trials in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google in addition to an ISI citation search for the original validating Glasgow Benefit Inventory paper between 1996 and January 2015.Evaluation methodPapers were assessed for study type and quality graded by a predesigned scale, by two authors independently. Papers with sufficient quality Glasgow Benefit Inventory data were identified for statistical comparisons. Papers with <50% follow-up were excluded.ResultsA total of 118 eligible papers were identified for inclusion. A national audit paper (n = 4325) showed that the Glasgow Benefit Inventory gave a range of scores across the specialty, being greater for surgical intervention than medical intervention or ‘reassurance’. Fourteen papers compared one form of surgery versus another form of surgery. In all but one study, there was no difference between the Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores (or of any other outcome). The most likely reason was lack of power. Two papers took an epidemiological approach and used the Glasgow Benefit Inventory scores to predict benefit. One was for tonsillectomy where duration of sore throat episodes and days with fever were identified on multivariate analysis to predict benefit albeit the precision was low. However, the traditional factor of number of episodes of sore throat was not predictive. The other was surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis where those with polyps on univariate analysis had greater benefit than those without. Forty-three papers had a response rate of >50% and gave sufficient Glasgow Benefit Inventory total and subscales for meta-analysis. For five of the 11 operation categories (vestibular schwannoma, tonsillectomy, cochlear implant, middle ear implant and stapes surgery) that were most likely to have a single clear clinical objective, score data had low-to-moderate heterogeneity. The value in the Glasgow Benefit Inventory having both positive and negative scores was shown by an overall negative score for the management of vestibular schwannoma. The other six operations gave considerable heterogeneity with rhinoplasty and septoplasty giving the greatest percentages (98% and 99%) most likely because of the considerable variations in patient selection. The data from these operations should not be used for comparative purposes. Five papers also reported the number of patients that h...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, these eight papers are reported in Table S1 and will not be further analysed. 55,[57][58][59][60]62,63,71…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Hendry

Chin

Swan

et al. 2016

Clinical Otolaryngology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sir, I read with interest the recent publication on salivary duct ligation for drooling in 21 children. 1 Although this report reveals useful information, there are some areas for discussion upon which I would like to expand.…”

Section: Dental Health Care For Drooling Patients -Personal Comments mentioning

confidence: 95%

Dental health care for drooling patients – Personal comments

Pitak‐Arnnop

2014

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dear Editor, We have read with interest the article by Crosbie et al 1 recently published in your journal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Re: Combined meatoplasty and canalplasty for intractable chronic otitis externa: our experience of twenty cases with audiometric and patient‐reported outcomes

Syed

Magos

Sim³

2014

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combined meatoplasty and canalplasty for intractable chronic otitis externa: Our experience of twenty cases with audiometric and patient‐reported outcomes

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient‐recorded outcome measure

Dental health care for drooling patients – Personal comments

Re: Combined meatoplasty and canalplasty for intractable chronic otitis externa: our experience of twenty cases with audiometric and patient‐reported outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About