The effectiveness of topical preparations for the treatment of earwax: A systematic review

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 54, Issue 508, 2004, Pages 862-867

  Hand, Christopher ^a   Harvey, Ian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ear wax; Meta analysis; Systematic review; Topical administration

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID; ALMOND OIL; ARACHIS OIL; AUDAX; BICARBONATE; CAMPHOR; CERUMOL; CHLORBUTOL; CHOLINE SALICYLATE; DOCUSATE SODIUM; EAR DROPS; EAREX; EAREX PLUS; ETHYLENE OXIDE; EXTEROL; GLYCEROL; HYDROGEN PEROXIDE; MOLCER; OLIVE OIL; OTEX; OTOCEROL; PROPYLENE GLYCOL; SODIUM CHLORIDE; TRIETHANOLAMINE OLEYLPOLYPEPTIDE; UREA DERIVATIVE; WATER;

CERUMEN; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTERNAL EAR DISEASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; META ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYRINGE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIME MANAGEMENT;

ADMINISTRATION, TOPICAL; CERUMEN; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IRRIGATION; OILS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SYRINGES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WATER;

EID: 10844238933     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Royal College of General Practitioners, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Department of Health. Morbidity statistics from general practice: fourth national study, 1991-1992. London: HMSO, 1995.
2. Aung T, Mulley GP. Removal of earwax. BMJ 2002; 325(7354): 27.
3. Hanger HC, Mulley GP. Cerumen: its fascination and clinical importance: a review. J Roy Soc Med 1992; 85(6): 346-349.
4. Robinson AC, Hawke M. The efficacy of ceruminolytics: everything old is new again. J Otolaryngol 1989; 18(6): 263-267.
5. Sharp JF, Wilson JA, Ross L, Barr-Hamilton RM. Earwax removal: a survey of current practice. BMJ 1990; 301(6763): 1251-1253.
6. Kent MA. The rationale behind the selection of ear syringing equipment. Br J Community Nurs 1998; 3: 398-404.
7. Hibble A. Practice nurse workload before and after the introduction of the 1990 contract for general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 35-37.
8. Memel D, Langley C, Watkins C, et al. Effectiveness of ear syringing in general practice: randomised controlled trial and patients' experiences. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52(484): 906-911.
9. Browning G. Ear wax. In: Barton S (ed). Clinical evidence London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2002. www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/conditions/ent/0504/0504.jsp (accessed 19 Jun 2003).
10. British National Formulary. 45th edition. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2003: 529-530.
11. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, et al. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd edn). York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001.
12. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282(11): 1054-1060.
13. Harris PG. A controlled trial of a ceruminolytic in general practice. Clin Trial J 1968; 5: 1129-1133.
14. Fraser JG. The efficacy of wax solvents: in vitro studies and a clinical trial. J Laryngol Otol 1970; 84(10): 1055-1064.
15. Senturia BH, Doubly JA. Treatment of external otitis. III - the use of vehicles and antibiotics in the external auditory canal. In vitro studies. The Laryngoscope 1947; 57: 633-657.
16. Horowitz JI. Solvents for ear wax. BMJ 1968; 4(630): 583.
17. Mehta AK. An in-vitro comparison of the disintegration of human earwax by five cerumenolytics commonly used in general practice. Br J Clin Pract 1985; 39(5): 200-203.
18. Bellini MJ, Terry RM, Lewis FA. An evaluation of common cerumenolytic agents: an in-vitro study. Clin Otolaryngol 1989; 14(1): 23-25.
19. Robinson AC, Hawke M. The efficacy of ceruminolytics: everything old is new again. J Otolaryngol 1989; 18(6): 263-267.
20. Andaz C, Whittet HB. An in vitro study to determine efficacy of different wax-dispersing agents. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1993; 55(2): 97-99.
21. Kamien M. Practice tip. Which cerumenolytic? Aust Fam Physician 1999; 28(8): 817-828.
22. Robinson AC, Hawke M, MacKay A, et al. The mechanism of ceruminolysis. J Otolaryngol 1989; 18(6): 268-273.
23. Buchan IE. StatsDirect statistical software. Sale: StatsDirect Ltd, 2002. http://www.statsdirect.com (accessed 20 Sep 2004).
24. Hinchcliffe R. Effect of current cerumenolytics. BMJ 1955; 2: 722.
25. Dubow E. A new ceruminolytic for use in pediatric ear examinations. AMA J Dis Child 1959; 97(6): 863-864.
26. Burgess EH. Wax in the ears and its management. J Coll Gen Pract 1966; 12(2): 249-250.
27. Proudfoot J. Clinical trial of a ceruminolytic agent in general practice. Br J Clin Pract 1968; 22(2): 69-70.
28. Baker BS. A clinical trial of a ceruminolytic agent. Trans Soc Occup Med 1969; 19(2): 62-63.
29. Fahmy S, Whitefield M. Multicentre clinical trial of Exterol® as a cerumenolytic. Br J Clin Pract 1982; 36(5 : 197-294.
30. Dubow E. A simple method to assure proper pediatric ear examinations. Arch Pediatr 1959; 76: 360-363.
31. General Practitioner Research Group. A wetting agent to facilitate ear syringing. Practitioner 1965; 195(170): 810-812.
32. Burgess EH. A wetting agent to facilitate ear syringing. Practitioner 1966; 197(182): 811-812.
33. General Practitioner Research Group. Wax softening with a new preparation. Practitioner 1967; 199(191): 359-362.
34. Chaput de Saintonge DM, Johnstone CI. A clinical comparison of triethanolamine polypetide oleate-condensate eardrops with olive oil for the removal of impacted wax. Br J Clin Pract 1973; 27(12 : 454-455.
35. Amjad AH, Scheer AA. Clinical evaluation of ceruminolytic agents. Eye Ear Nose Throat Mon 1975; 54(2): 76-77.
36. Jaffé G, Grimshaw J. A multicentre clinical trial comparing Otocerol® with Cerumol® as cerumenolytics. J Int Med Res 1978; 6(3): 241-244.
37. Lyndon S, Roy P, Grillage MG, Miller AJ. A comparison of the efficacy of two eardrop preparations ('Audax' and 'Earex') in the softening and removal of impacted ear wax. Curr Med Res Opin 1992; 13(1): 21-25.
38. Dummer DS, Sutherland LA, Murray JA. A single-blind, randomized study to compare the efficacy of two eardrop preparations ('Audax' and 'Cerumol') in the softening of ear wax. Curr Med Res Opin 1992; 13(1): 28-30.
39. Keane EM, Wilson H, McGrane D, et al. Use of solvents to disperse earwax. Br J Clin Pract 1995; 49(2): 71-72.
40. Spiro SR. A cost-effectiveness analysis of earwax softeners. Nurse Pract 1997; 22(8): 28, 30-31, 166.
41. Singer AJ, Sauris E, Viccellio AW. Ceruminolytic effects of docusate sodium: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2000; 36(3): 228-232.
42. Eekhof JAH, de Bock GH, Le Cessie S, Springer MP. A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persisting earwax in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51(469): 635-637.
43. Carr MM, Smith RL. Ceruminolytic efficacy in adults versus children. J Laryngol 2001; 30(3): 154-156.
44. Meehan P, Isenhour JL, Reevs R, Wrenn K. Ceruminolysis in the pediatric patient; a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Academic Emergency Medicine 2002; 95: 521-522.
45. Whatley VN, Dodds CL, Paul RI. Randomized clinical trial of docusate, triethanolamine polypeptide, and irrigation in cerumen removal in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003; 157(12): 1177-1180.
46. Burton MJ, Dorée CJ. Ear drops for the removal of ear wax (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
47. Price J. Problems with ear syringing. Pract Nurse 1997; 14: 126-128.
48. Rodgers R. Isn't it time we stopped washing out ears? Primary Health Care 1992; 2: 1317.
49. Fall M, Walters S, Read S, et al. An evaluation of a nurse-led ear care service in primary care: benefits and costs. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47(424): 699-703.
50. Stubbs G. Ear-syringing and aural care. Nurs Times 2000; 96(43): 35-37.