The role of MucodyneR in reducing the need for surgery in patients with persistent otitis media with effusion

Abstract

operative intervention or not. Of the 28 patients with resolved OME, 17 were in the Mucodyne group and 11 in the placebo group. Although it appeared that patients treated with Mucodyne were 1.68 times more likely to undergo resolution of OME than patients receiving placebo, this did not reach statistical significance. [Risk ratio of 1.68 (95% C.I., 0.74-3.37)]. chi2 test (df = 162) = 2.24 (P = 0.134). The absolute risk difference in the study was 8.5% (95% C.I., -3-20). We cannot exclude the possibility that Mucodyne is as beneficial as a 20% additional resolution of OME, or as harmful as a 3% decrease in the resolution of OME.

S-carboxymethylcysteine in the treatment of glue ear: quantitative systematic review

“…Seven published randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Four studies [19-22] had information on affected children, while three [9,23,24] had information on affected ears. One study [9] included one adult and 45 children.…”

“…Four studies had quality scores of 3 or more [9,19,20,24]. The number-needed-to-treat for these high quality studies was 6.7 (4.2 to 17).…”

“…The number-needed-to-treat for these high quality studies was 6.7 (4.2 to 17). Three studies [19-21] had validity scores of 8 or more. These failed to reach statistical significance with a relative benefit of 1.5 (0.96 to 2.3) and a number-needed-to-treat of 8.5 (4.4 to 105).…”

“…These failed to reach statistical significance with a relative benefit of 1.5 (0.96 to 2.3) and a number-needed-to-treat of 8.5 (4.4 to 105). For four studies [9,19,22,23] intention-to-treat analysis was possible. The number-needed-to-treat for these studies was 5.1 (3.9 to 8.3); there was no statistical benefit in the three trials in which only per protocol data could be used.…”

“…The number-needed-to-treat for these studies was 5.1 (3.9 to 8.3); there was no statistical benefit in the three trials in which only per protocol data could be used. Two trials [9,19] had more than 50 patients in the comparison, and in these the NNT was 6.3 (4.0 to 15). Confidence intervals of numbers-needed-to-treat of large and small trials, of trials of high and low quality, of high and low validity, and with intention-to-treat or per protocol analysis overlapped (Table 1).…”