↓ Skip to main content

A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persistent earwax in general practice.

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
A quasi-randomised controlled trial of water as a quick softening agent of persistent earwax in general practice.
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2001
Pubmed ID
Authors

J A Eekhof, G H de Bock, S Le Cessie, M P Springer

Abstract

Earwax is a common problem in general practice. The incidence of complaints owing to earwax in general practice in the Netherlands is 39.3 per 1000 patients. To determine the feasibility of a strategy using water as a quick dispersant for persistent earwax, compared with the usual strategy using oil as a dispersant for three days in a general practice setting. Practice based, prospective controlled intervention study. Forty-two patients (59 ears) in four general practices in the Netherlands. Patients with persistent earwax were randomised into an intervention group and a control group. For patients in the intervention group, water drops at body temperature were dropped into the impacted ear and the auditory meatus was blocked with a wet wad of cotton. After the patient had waited for 15 minutes in the waiting room a series of attempts at syringing was completed. Patients in the control group received the usual strategy and were instructed to soften the earwax with oil each night before sleeping and to block the auditory meatus with a wad of cotton, for three days. They were asked to come back after three days for the second attempt of syringing. For both strategies the mean number of syringing attempts (and 95% confidence interval) was calculated and compared by testing the difference between the means using a t-test for independent samples. All ears in which the wax was still persistent after another five syringing attempts were given the value of 6 in the calculations. The mean number of syringing attempts needed per patient in the intervention group was 3.0 (95% CI = 2.4 to 3.6) and for the control group, the mean was 2.4 (95% CI = 1.7 to 3.1). The difference between means (0.6, 95% CI = 0.3 to 1.5) was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). A patient with persistent earwax can stay in the waiting room following the initial series of five attempts at syringing, with water instilled in the ear canal. After 15 minutes, the earwax is removed as easily as in the usual strategy using oil instilled for three days. The strategy using water as a dispersant for persistent earwax is quick and more convenient for the patient.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Master 5 21%
Other 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Unspecified 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 38%
Unspecified 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,171,352
of 13,415,696 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#916
of 2,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,630
of 182,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#26
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,415,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 182,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.