ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Auricular Point Sticking for Patients with Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an acute otolaryngologic emergency. Although evidence suggests that auricular point sticking (APS) may be beneficial for hearing recovery, the role of APS in sudden hearing loss is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical application of APS in SSHL patients. Patients and Methods: This prospective cohort study analyzed 624 patients with SSHL between January 2019 and December 2023. Patients were divided into an APS group (n=165) and a non-APS group (n=459) based on APS use. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the two groups. Hearing recovery and cure rates were evaluated between the two groups. Results: After PSM, hearing recovery (P=0.020) and cure rate (P=0.009) were significantly higher in the APS group than in the non-APS group. Ordered logistic regression analysis indicated that APS (odds ratio [OR] = 2.182, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.335-3.565, P=0.002) was significantly associated with hearing recovery. A significant improvement in cure rate (OR = 2.320, 95% CI: 1.378-3.904, P=0.002) was observed in APS patients compared to the non-APS group. Sensitivity analysis further confirmed that patients who received APS exhibited better hearing recovery. Conclusion: APS enhances hearing recovery and cure rates in SSHL patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.