一项荟萃分析比较了不同给药方式的药膏在治疗耳霉菌病方面的疗效和安全性。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Journal of Laryngology and Otology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1017/S0022215124000732
Lei Fan, Xue-Meng Xu, Bi-Yao Liu, Jing Huang, Da-Zhong Yan
{"title":"一项荟萃分析比较了不同给药方式的药膏在治疗耳霉菌病方面的疗效和安全性。","authors":"Lei Fan, Xue-Meng Xu, Bi-Yao Liu, Jing Huang, Da-Zhong Yan","doi":"10.1017/S0022215124000732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of two different modes of administration, external ear canal filling and smearing, in the treatment of otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computerised search of relevant published studies in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases that include randomised controlled trials or clinically controlled trials on the same drug in different modes of administration for the treatment of otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies with 934 patients were included. The filled group had a higher clinical efficacy (relative risk = 1.18, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.24, <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and a lower recurrence rate (relative risk = 0.29, 95 per cent CI 0.18-0.47, <i>p</i> < 0.0001) compared with the smear group, and there was no significant difference in the adverse effects (relative risk = 0.61, 95 per cent CI 0.34-1.12, <i>p</i> = 0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of the delivery modality of the external auditory canal filling treatment is significantly better than external auditory canal smearing.</p>","PeriodicalId":16293,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laryngology and Otology","volume":" ","pages":"1073-1080"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of different modes of administration of cream in the treatment of otomycosis.\",\"authors\":\"Lei Fan, Xue-Meng Xu, Bi-Yao Liu, Jing Huang, Da-Zhong Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0022215124000732\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of two different modes of administration, external ear canal filling and smearing, in the treatment of otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computerised search of relevant published studies in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases that include randomised controlled trials or clinically controlled trials on the same drug in different modes of administration for the treatment of otomycosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies with 934 patients were included. The filled group had a higher clinical efficacy (relative risk = 1.18, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.24, <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and a lower recurrence rate (relative risk = 0.29, 95 per cent CI 0.18-0.47, <i>p</i> < 0.0001) compared with the smear group, and there was no significant difference in the adverse effects (relative risk = 0.61, 95 per cent CI 0.34-1.12, <i>p</i> = 0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of the delivery modality of the external auditory canal filling treatment is significantly better than external auditory canal smearing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Laryngology and Otology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1073-1080\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Laryngology and Otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215124000732\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laryngology and Otology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215124000732","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估外耳道填塞和涂抹两种不同给药方式治疗耳霉菌病的有效性和安全性:计算机检索中国国家知识基础设施、中国生物医学、Web of Science、PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中已发表的相关研究,其中包括随机对照试验或临床对照试验,研究同一药物以不同给药方式治疗耳霉菌病:结果:共纳入 7 项研究,934 名患者。与涂片组相比,灌注组的临床疗效更高(相对风险=1.18,95% 置信区间(CI)1.12-1.24,p < 0.0001),复发率更低(相对风险=0.29,95% 置信区间(CI)0.18-0.47,p < 0.0001),不良反应无显著差异(相对风险=0.61,95% 置信区间(CI)0.34-1.12,p = 0.11):目前的证据表明,外耳道充填治疗的给药方式疗效明显优于外耳道涂片治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of different modes of administration of cream in the treatment of otomycosis.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of two different modes of administration, external ear canal filling and smearing, in the treatment of otomycosis.

Methods: A computerised search of relevant published studies in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases that include randomised controlled trials or clinically controlled trials on the same drug in different modes of administration for the treatment of otomycosis.

Results: Seven studies with 934 patients were included. The filled group had a higher clinical efficacy (relative risk = 1.18, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.24, p < 0.0001) and a lower recurrence rate (relative risk = 0.29, 95 per cent CI 0.18-0.47, p < 0.0001) compared with the smear group, and there was no significant difference in the adverse effects (relative risk = 0.61, 95 per cent CI 0.34-1.12, p = 0.11).

Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of the delivery modality of the external auditory canal filling treatment is significantly better than external auditory canal smearing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Laryngology and Otology
Journal of Laryngology and Otology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
593
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Laryngology & Otology (JLO) is a leading, monthly journal containing original scientific articles and clinical records in otology, rhinology, laryngology and related specialties. Founded in 1887, JLO is absorbing reading for ENT specialists and trainees. The journal has an international outlook with contributions from around the world, relevant to all specialists in this area regardless of the country in which they practise. JLO contains main articles (original, review and historical), case reports and short reports as well as radiology, pathology or oncology in focus, a selection of abstracts, book reviews, letters to the editor, general notes and calendar, operative surgery techniques, and occasional supplements. It is fully illustrated and has become a definitive reference source in this fast-moving subject area. Published monthly an annual subscription is excellent value for money. Included in the subscription is access to the JLO interactive web site with searchable abstract database of the journal archive back to 1887.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信