METHODS: This paper outlines novel emerging aetiological factors contributing to vestibular dysfunction amongst adolescents by appraising published articles through a narrative review.

RESULTS: Underlying aetiological factors of vestibular dysfunction can be identified among adolescents with thorough evaluation. Proper diagnostic evaluation of vestibular dysfunction is imperative in providing optimal care and guiding appropriate treatment strategies. The available literature demonstrated multifactorial aetiological factors that contribute to vestibular dysfunction in adolescents.

METHODS: A comprehensive review of recent literature on non-acid reflux and airway reflux in children was conducted. Studies ranged from January 2010 till November 2021 were searched over a period of a month: December 2021.

RESULTS: A total of eleven studies were identified. All studies included in this review revealed a strong link between non-acid reflux and airway reflux in children. 6 of the included studies are prospective studies, 3 retrospective studies, 1 cross-section study, and type of study was not mentioned in 1 study. The most common reported respiratory manifestation of non-acid reflux in children was chronic cough (7 studies). Predominant non-acid reflux was noted in 4 studies. The total number of children in each study ranges from 21 to 150 patients. MII-pH study was carried out in all studies included as a diagnostic tool for reflux investigation.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in children and adolescents.

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies published until 29 April 2022. We used a random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test. The robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroups and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: We identified 1811 studies, of which 39 studies (n = 323,663) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of children and adolescents with VD was 30.4% [95% CI 28.5-32.3%]. The age of the participants ranged from 1 to 19 years. Participants of the included 39 studies were from 15 countries. Among the studies, 34 were cross-sectional, and five were case-control designed. There were discrepancies found in the studies with objective (higher prevalence) versus subjective (lower prevalence) evaluations.

BULLET POINT SUMMARY: The best diagnostic and therapeutic method for the management of foreign body in the oesophagus is examination under anaesthesia.Suspension microesophagoscopy can be done in the operation theatre with pre-existing instrument.This technique allows freedom for a two-handed technique.This technique gives a magnified visualisation of the mucosa revealing any embedded foreign body.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR) entails creating an opening from the lacrimal sac directly into the nasal cavity to counteract nasolacrimal duct obstruction. We reviewed the literature to determine the effectiveness and the safety of primary EDCR to treat pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

METHOD: A literature search was conducted by using a number of medical literature data bases for the period from 1995 to 2016. The following search words were used either individually or in combination: epiphora, nasolacrimal duct obstruction, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, laser-assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, children, congenital, acquired, presaccal obstruction, and postsaccal obstruction. In addition, a few articles were identified based on the experience and information provided by the senior authors (B.A., S.H., D.Y.W.). The search was conducted over a 1-month period (January 2017). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed when possible.

RESULTS: Only 10 original clinical research articles were selected based on our objectives and selection criteria. All the studies were at level of evidence III: nonrandomized and noncomparative prospective or retrospective case series. Altogether, 313 patients with ages that ranged from 4 months to 18 years were enrolled. A total of 352 EDCRs were performed that were either single sided (n = 313) or bilateral (n = 39). The most common causes of the obstruction were classified as congenital, followed by idiopathic, and then acquired. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity of the patient groups and variability of the methods used to measure outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between 1 December 2019 and 23 July 2020. We used random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test. Robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroup and sensitivity analyses This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183768).

RESULTS: We identified 1162 studies, of which 83 studies (n = 27492, 61.4% female) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients was 47.85% [95% CI: 41.20-54.50]. We observed olfactory dysfunction in 54.40% European, 51.11% North American, 31.39% Asian, and 10.71% Australian COVID-19 patients. Anosmia, hyposmia, and dysosmia were observed in 35.39%, 36.15%, and 2.53% of the patients, respectively. There were discrepancies in the results of studies with objective (higher prevalence) versus subjective (lower prevalence) evaluations. The discrepancy might be due to false-negative reporting observed in self-reported health measures.

CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients was found to be 47.85% based on high-quality evidence. Due to the subjective measures of most studies pooled in the analysis, further studies with objective measures are advocated to confirm the finding.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 23, 2020, without language restrictions. There was no restriction on the study design; therefore, observational studies, clinical trials, and case series were included. In addition, preprints were considered if data of interest were reported.

REVIEW METHODS: Two authors independently screened articles for eligibility. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CIs. Quality assessment was done with critical appraisal tools of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies were included (N = 29,349 patients, 64.4% female). The pooled prevalence of taste disorders in patients with COVID-19 was 48.1% (95% CI, 41.3%-54.8%). The prevalence of taste disorders in studies with objective assessments was higher as compared with subjective assessments (59.2% vs 47.3%). The disorders were observed in 55.2% of European patients; 61.0%, North American; 27.1%, Asian; 29.5%, South American; and 25.0%, Australian. Ageusia, hypogeusia, and dysgeusia were detected in 28.0%, 33.5%, and 41.3% of patients with COVID-19. We identified 91.5% of the included studies as high quality.