Evidence Hub

Making Recommendations for an Evaluation and Treatment Algorithm for Patients with Ear Fullness and No Objective Abnormalities

Lee K, Adamovich-Zeitlin R, Svrakic M

Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2024

964 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations for evaluation, approach to counseling and treatment for patients who present with ear fullness without abnormalities on otomicroscopic examination, standard audiometric studies, or imaging results.

METHODS: Retrospective chart review of adult patients in a tertiary referral center presenting with ear fullness and/or otalgia without external, middle, and/or inner ear pathologies. Data collected include demographics (age and gender), laterality and duration of symptoms, co-morbid conditions and final diagnoses of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, intermittent Eustachian tube dysfunction (iETD), migraine disorder, and anxiety.

RESULTS: In the span of 8 years of a single neurotologist's practice, 964 patients presented with ear fullness. After excluding all instances where external, middle, and inner ear disorders were identified and where audiometric and radiologic findings were abnormal, 263 patients had ear fullness and no objective causes. Women were more likely than men to complain of ear fullness and/or otalgia and were also more likely to present with no objective abnormalities ( p < 0.05). Patients who reported isolated ear fullness were more likely to be diagnosed with iETD, whereas patients who reported pain were more likely to be diagnosed with TMJ dysfunction (TMJD). Fourteen patients (5.3%) had completely unexplained sensation of ear fullness.

CONCLUSIONS: There were 94.7% of the patients presenting with unexplained ear…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 964 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free