Search

Recurrent idiopathic epistaxis (nosebleeds) in children is repeated nasal bleeding in patients up to the age of 16 for which no specific cause has been identified. Although nosebleeds are very common in children, and most cases are self-limiting or settle with simple measures (such as pinching the nose), more severe recurrent cases can require treatment from a healthcare professional. However, there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the different clinical interventions currently used in managing this condition.To assess the effects of different interventions for the management of recurrent idiopathic epistaxis in children.We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2003), CINAHL (January 1982 to August 2003), and reference lists of relevant articles.We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which any surgical or medical intervention for the treatment of recurrent idiopathic epistaxis in children was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, or another intervention, and in which the frequency and severity of episodes of nasal bleeding following treatment was stated or calculable. The full text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance were reviewed by the two reviewers and the inclusion criteria applied independently.Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach. Data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one reviewer and rechecked by the other, and where necessary investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. A meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the heterogeneity of the treatments, procedures and quality of the included trials. A narrative overview of the results is therefore presented.Three studies - two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one controlled clinical trial (CCT) - involving 256 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria. One RCT compared Naseptin antiseptic cream with no treatment, the second RCT compared Vaseline(R) petroleum jelly with no treatment, and the CCT compared Naseptin antiseptic cream with silver nitrate cautery. Overall, results were inconclusive, with no statistically significant difference found between the compared treatments. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions, although children receiving silver nitrate cautery reported that it was a painful experience (despite the use of local anaesthetic).The optimal management of children with recurrent idiopathic epistaxis is unknown. High quality randomised controlled trials comparing interventions either with placebo or no treatment, and with a follow-up period of at least a year, are needed to assess the relative merits of the various treatments currently in use.

Problems attributed to the accumulation of wax (cerumen) are one of the most common reasons for people to present to their general practitioners with ear trouble (Sharp 1990). Treatment for this condition often involves use of a wax softening agent (cerumenolytic) in order to disperse the cerumen and reduce the need for syringing, or to facilitate syringing should it prove necessary, but there is no consensus on the effectiveness of the wide variety of cerumenolytics in use.To assess the effectiveness of ear drops (cerumenolytics) for the removal of symptomatic ear wax.We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2003), and MEDLINE and EMBASE up to March 2003. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched.We identified all randomised controlled trials (with or without blinding) in which a cerumenolytic was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, or other cerumenolytics in participants with hard or impacted ear wax, and in which the proportion of participants with sufficient clearance of the external canal to make further mechanical clearance unnecessary (primary outcome measure) was stated or calculable. The full text articles of all the retrieved trials of possible relevance were reviewed by the two reviewers and the inclusion criteria applied independently. Any differences in opinion about which studies to include in the review were resolved by discussion.Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach. Data extraction was performed in a standardised manner by one reviewer and rechecked by the other reviewer, and where necessary investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. Meta-analysis was neither possible nor considered appropriate because of the heterogeneity of the treatments, treatment amounts and durations, trial procedures, and scoring systems. A narrative overview of the results is therefore presented.Eight trials satisfied the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were of poor quality. In all, 587 participants received one of nine different cerumenolytics. One trial compared active treatments with no treatment, two trials compared active treatments with water or a saline 'placebo', and all eight trials placed two or more active treatments in head-to-head comparisons. Seven trials included syringing as a secondary treatment where necessary.Overall, results were inconclusive. One trial found a significant difference between one of three active agents (Cerumol) in comparison to no treatment, but no statistically significant difference was found between these three agents (sodium bicarbonate ear drops; Cerumol; sterile water). In two trials no statistical difference was found between the effectiveness of either sodium bicarbonate ear drops, Cerumol, Cerumenex or Colace versus a sterile water or saline 'placebo'. Three trials (from the same source) found statistically significant differences in favour of the same active agent (Exterol) in comparison to glycerol and Cerumol. Three trials found no statistically significant difference between two or more cerumenolytics (Otocerol versus Cerumol; Audax versus Earex; sodium bicarbonate ear drops versus Cerumol). Two trials comparing the same two cerumenolytics (Cerumenex versus Colace) also failed to show any significant benefit of one over the other. No serious adverse effects were reported from any of the interventions.Trials to date have been heterogeneous and of poor quality, making it difficult to offer any definitive recommendations on the effectiveness of cerumenolytics for the removal of symptomatic ear wax. Future trials should be of high methodological quality, have large sample sizes, and compare both oil-based and water-based solvents with placebo and/or no treatment.

Surgical removal of the tonsils (tonsillectomy) is a common but controversial ENT operation.To determine the effect of tonsillectomy in patients with chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis.Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, bibliographies.Randomised controlled trials comparing tonsillectomy with non-surgical treatment in adults and children with chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis. Trials which included reduction in the number and severity of tonsillitis and sore throat as main outcome measures.Two authors applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria independently.No trials evaluating the effectiveness of tonsillectomy in adults were identified. Two trials from Pittsburgh assessed tonsillectomy in children. Significant baseline differences between the surgical and non-surgical groups and the inclusion of children who also underwent adenoidectomy prevent firm conclusions being drawn from the fully published trial. Limited and insufficient information is available from the second study; further details are awaited.The effectiveness of tonsillectomy has not been formally evaluated. Further trials addressing relevant outcome measure are required.