↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Systemic antibiotics versus topical treatments for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

1 Wikipedia page


105 Dimensions

Readers on

149 Mendeley
Systemic antibiotics versus topical treatments for chronically discharging ears with underlying eardrum perforations
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005608
Pubmed ID

Macfadyen, Carolyn A, Acuin, Jose M, Gamble, Carrol L, Macfadyen, C A, Acuin, J M, Gamble, C


Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) causes ear discharge and impairs hearing. To compare systemic antibiotics and topical antiseptics or antibiotics (excluding steroids) for treating chronically discharging ears with an underlying eardrum perforation (CSOM). The Cochrane ENT Disorders Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1951 to March 2005), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2005), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2005), AMED (1985 to March 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2005), OLDMEDLINE (January 1958 to December 1965) PREMEDLINE, Metadatabase of registers of ongoing trials (mRCT), and article references. Randomised controlled trials; any systemic versus topical treatment (excluding steroids); participants with CSOM. One author assessed eligibility and quality, extracted data, entered data into RevMan; two authors provided a second assessment of titles and abstracts, and inputted where there was ambiguity. We contacted investigators for clarifications. Nine trials (833 randomised participants; 842 analysed participants or ears). CSOM definitions and severity varied; some included mastoid cavity infections, other diagnoses, or complications. Methodological quality varied; generally poorly reported, follow-up short, handling of bilateral disease inconsistent. Topical quinolone antibiotics were better than systemic antibiotics at clearing discharge at 1-2 weeks: relative risks (RR) were, 3.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 5.49) using systemic non-quinolone antibiotics (2 trials, N = 116), and 3.18 (1.87 to 5.43) using systemic quinolone (3 trials, N = 175); or 2.75 (1.38 to 5.46) in favour of systemic plus topical quinolone over systemic quinolone alone (2 trials, N = 90). No statistically significant benefit was seen at 2-4 weeks for topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or topical antiseptic over systemic antibiotics (mostly non-quinolones), but numbers were small: one trial tested topical non-quinolones (N = 31); two tested antiseptics (N = 152). No benefit of adding systemic to topical treatment at 1-2 weeks was detected either, although evidence was limited (three trials, N = 204). Evidence regarding safety was generally weak. Adverse events reported were generally mild, although hearing worsened by ototoxicity (damaging auditory hair cells) was seen with chloramphenicol drops (non-quinolone antibiotic). Topical quinolone antibiotics can clear aural discharge better than systemic antibiotics; topical non-quinolone antibiotic (without steroids) or antiseptic results are less clear. Evidence regarding safety was weak. Further studies should clarify topical non-quinolones and antiseptic effectiveness, assess longer-term outcomes (for resolution, healing, hearing, or complications), and include further safety assessments, particularly to clarify the risks of ototoxicity and whether there may be fewer adverse events with topical quinolones than other topical or systemic treatments.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 46 31%