PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Objectives/Hypothesis: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of and complications associated with antifungal drugs and traditional antiseptic medication for the treatment of otomycosis. Data Sources: The PubMed, EMBASE, GeenMedical, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and other databases were searched from January 1991 to January 2021. Methods: The systematic literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (case-control, cohort, and case series) were included to assess the topical use of antifungal drugs and traditional antiseptic medication in patients with otomycosis. The research subjects were patients who were clinically diagnosed with otomycosis and whose external auditory canal secretions were positive for fungi. Funnel plots were used to detect bias, and the Q test was used to assess heterogeneity. The random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. The t-test was used to assess significance. Results: Of the 324 non-duplicate studies screened, 16 studies met the criteria for full-text review, and 7 were included in the meta-analysis. Four studies reported recovery conditions (P = 0.01). Six common complications after medication use were compared, and there were no significant differences. The authors further conducted subgroup analysis according to complications. The differences in the rates of ear distension (P = 0.007), earache (P = 0.03) and tinnitus (P = 0.003) were statistically significant. Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis and literature review showed that antifungal drugs and traditional antiseptic medication were effective in relieving symptoms in patients with otomycosis, and the two treatments were associated with different complications. Otolaryngologists have the option to use one medication or a combination of two drugs on the basis of the condition. Future research in this area should include RCTs with long-term follow-up to guide the development of otomycosis guidelines to overcome some of the weaknesses found in the literature. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero.
摘要：
目标/假设：进行系统评价和荟萃分析，比较抗真菌药物和传统抗菌药物治疗耳真菌病的疗效和相关并发症。数据来源:ThePubMed,EMBASE,GeenMedical,科克伦图书馆,CBM,CNKI,从1991年1月到2021年1月搜索了VIP和其他数据库。方法：系统文献回顾遵循系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）指南的首选报告项目。随机对照试验(RCT)和非随机研究(病例对照，队列,和病例系列）被纳入其中，以评估耳真菌病患者局部使用抗真菌药物和传统抗菌药物的情况。研究对象为临床诊断为耳真菌病且外耳道分泌物真菌阳性的患者。漏斗图用于检测偏差，并使用Q检验评估异质性。采用随机效应模型进行Meta分析。t检验用于评估显著性。结果：在筛选的324项非重复研究中，16项研究符合全文审查的标准，7例纳入荟萃分析.4项研究报告了恢复条件(P=0.01)。比较用药后常见的6种并发症,并且没有显著差异。作者进一步根据并发症进行亚组分析。耳扩张率的差异（P=0.007），耳痛(P=0.03)和耳鸣(P=0.003)有统计学意义。结论:本次荟萃分析和文献综述结果显示,抗真菌药物和传统抗菌药物治疗对缓解耳真菌病患者的症状均有较好的疗效,两种治疗方法均有不同的并发症。耳鼻喉科医师可以根据病情选择使用一种药物或两种药物的组合。该领域的未来研究应包括长期随访的RCT，以指导耳真菌病指南的制定，以克服文献中的一些弱点。系统审查注册：https://www。crd.约克。AC.uk/PROSPERO/#mysproro.
