CKS is no longer commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE remains committed to providing a replacement service for CKS and is currently reviewing its options. In the meantime, although CKS content is now not being maintained, it still remains relevant and will continue to be made available. CKS content was generated under a programme of topic creation and update. To check if the topic you are viewing is current or out of date, please refer to the topic publication details by clicking on the 'How up-to-date is this topic?' link in the left hand menu on individual topic pages.
Earwax - Evidence
Benefits of ear irrigation
There is limited evidence that removal of wax by ear irrigation results in an improvement in hearing.
- A randomized single-blind controlled trial of people (n = 116) attending three UK general practices for ear syringing attempted to find out if ear syringing improved symptoms of hearing loss [Memel et al, 2002]. One group (n = 55) received hearing tests before and after ear syringing, and the control group had two hearing tests before their ears were syringed. The study found that hearing improved by more than 10 decibels in 34% of the intervention group (NNT = 3.1, p = 0.01) compared with the control group. Improvements in hearing of more than 10 decibels were significantly associated with reported improvement in the following:
- Hearing one to one (p < 0.001).
- Hearing in a group (p = 0.011).
- Hearing on the telephone (p < 0.001).
- Blocked ears (p = 0.034).
- Other symptoms (i.e. pain, noises, and itchy ears) were reported as improved but did not reach statistical significance.
- A randomized (allocation concealed), blinded (outcome assessors) controlled trial aimed to investigate whether ear syringing improved follow up in general practice [Somerville, 2003]. People (n = 114) who attended clinics with a tympanic membrane completely obscured by wax used oily ear drops for at least 3 days. All participants had their hearing tested. The intervention group (n = 55) had their hearing retested after ear syringing, and the control group had their hearing retested after the same time interval although their ears were not syringed. More people in the intervention group had an improvement in hearing of at least 10 decibels (34%) compared with the control group (1.6%) (NNT = 4; 95% CI 3.8 to 10.1).
- A systematic review of 26 clinical trials (search date: to November 2008) conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies) found limited good quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of different methods of ear irrigation. Wet irrigation was found to be better than dry irrigation, but it was difficult to compare different studies due to heterogenous interventions and outcome measures used [Clegg et al, 2010].
© NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement