Comparison of safety and efficacy of foam‐based versus solution‐based ciprofloxacin for acute otitis externa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare and evaluate the efficacy and safety of a foam-based antibiotic formulation in the treatment of acute otitis externa (AOE) with the more conventional solution-based formulation. STUDY DESIGN: Phase 2, open-label, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Multicenter. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-three eligible adult patients with unilateral AOE were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: an experimental 0.3 percent foam-based ciprofloxacin, (FoamOtic Cipro) or 0.3 percent solution-based ciprofloxacin (Ciloxan). All patients received the same dose regime (twice daily for 7 days). The primary efficacy variable was response to therapy (cure) in the test-of-cure visit. Secondary variables included improvement of the disease symptoms otalgia, tenderness, edema, and otorrhea. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Seven patients were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to major deviations from the protocol. Per-protocol analysis (n = 57) showed that cure was achieved in all the patients (P = 1.000). No significant differences were found between groups for symptomatic relief, resolution of otic discharge, or onset of pain reduction. Both treatments were found to be highly efficacious and safe, demonstrating the noninferiority of the experimental drug. CONCLUSION: Foam-based ciprofloxacin is a safe and an effective new treatment for AOE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".