Antibiotics versus non-antibiotic treatments for acute otitis externa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Otitis externa is a condition causing inflammation of the outer ear canal, which presents with itching, discharge and pain. Most cases of acute otitis externa are caused by bacterial infection and are thus treated with antibiotics. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials aims to assess the effectiveness of topical non-antibiotic treatments compared to topical antibiotic treatment for the treatment of acute otitis externa. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis databases searched: Cochrane Library including ClinicalTrials.gov; MEDLINE; World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Web of Science to identify randomised clinical trials evaluating topical antibiotics and topical non-antibiotic agents in adults and children with acute otitis externa. Non-antibiotic therapeutics for comparison with topical antibiotics included antiseptics, steroids, non-pharmaceuticals and astringents. RESULTS: Seventeen trials were eligible for inclusion, with 10 combined in meta-analysis. Data could be pooled comparing antiseptic and steroid monotherapies with topical antibiotic agents. There were no significant differences in cure rates in any pairwise comparisons. Individually, the majority of studies favoured topical antiseptics or steroids over antibiotics, however these differences were not significant when pooled in meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Antiseptic, steroid and antibiotic monotherapies are all effective for the management of acute otitis externa. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that topical antiseptic or steroid agents are superior or inferior to topical antibiotics.

Virtual Trauma Meeting as a Component of Undergraduate Orthopaedic Education.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual teaching has proven effective for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study is the first to describe an undergraduate orthopaedic teaching strategy in the format of virtual trauma meetings (VTM). METHODS: Clinical medical students from the Universities of Bristol and Cardiff were invited to attend five VTM between October and November 2020. These were delivered by consultants and speciality doctors via Zoom software. An 11-item feedback form was distributed after each session to assess the relevance of teaching material, student confidence in asking and answering questions, and if students would benefit from further sessions. Several open-ended questions were designed to evaluate aspects of the session that were most useful, which orthopaedic topics were of high priority and if they had any suggestions for improvement. Our initial aim was to assess student acceptance of the virtual format. Several months later pre-recorded material was uploaded onto YouTube and post hoc questionnaires were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 50 students attended, with a median of 11±6 attending per session, producing a total of 26 feedback responses. Among the responders, there were 10 males and nine females and 63% of the students were in their third year. 100% of students felt comfortable asking questions and 96% felt comfortable answering questions. X-ray interpretation and management of fractures were the highest priority subjects. The majority of students considered the interaction between senior and junior doctors most valuable, and the most common improvement suggested was the inclusion of polls or OSCE-styled questions. CONCLUSIONS: VTM could be a useful resource to enhance undergraduate trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) education by providing student-focused material in an open learning environment.