A comparison of <scp>L</scp>ocacorten‐<scp>V</scp>ioform and clotrimazole in otomycosis: A systematic review and one‐way meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and ototoxicity of Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and clotrimazole in the treatment of patients with otomycosis. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: We included any randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized studies (case-control, cohort, and case series) assessing the topical use of Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) and/or clotrimazole in adult and/or pediatric immunocompetent patient population with otomycosis. DerSimonian and Laird's random effects approach was used for meta-analysis, followed by an assessment of heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Of 226 reviewed articles, 14 were retained. Clotrimazole efficacy rate was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.7-89.0%), whereas Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) was 73% (95% CI: 56.0-84.5%). Overall, study quality was low. There was high heterogeneity in both groups (I(2) of 47 and 49). There were only three studies assessing Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.); therefore, comparative assessment was not possible. A one-way meta-analysis involving 13 clotrimazole studies was performed. Heterogeneity across studies was high; however, studies using objective analysis assessing treatment efficacy, randomized controlled trials, studies using drops, studies performed in Asia, and studies where Candida was the major fungus at diagnosis demonstrated low heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Although both are safe and effective, there is insufficient evidence supporting increased efficacy of either clotrimazole or Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) for the treatment of otomycosis. High-quality comparative studies are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A. Laryngoscope, 126:1411-1419, 2016.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".