Chang 1996

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the

treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review)
Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ, Diamond C, Nunez DA
Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ, Diamond C, Nunez DA.

Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD006287.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006287.pub4.
www.cochranelibrary.com
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review)
Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage, Outcome 1 Rate of recurrence. . . . . 35
ADDITIONAL TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review) i
[Intervention Review]

treatment of peritonsillar abscess
Brent A Chang1 , Andrew Thamboo1 , Martin J Burton2 , Chris Diamond1 , Desmond A Nunez1
1 Division
of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2 UK Cochrane Centre,
Oxford, UK
Contact address: Brent A Chang, Division of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel St.,
4th Floor Otolaryngology (ENT), Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. brent.a.chang@gmail.com.
Editorial group: Cochrane ENT Group.

Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 12, 2016.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 25 August 2016.
Citation: Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ, Diamond C, Nunez DA. Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for
the treatment of peritonsillar abscess. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD006287. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD006287.pub4.
ABSTRACT
Background
Peritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by
a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus. Needle aspiration and incision
and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used in the treatment of this condition. The effectiveness of one versus
the other has not been clearly demonstrated and remains an area of debate.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in older
children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.
Search methods
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016,
Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published
and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 August 2016.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials comparing needle aspiration with incision and drainage.
Data collection and analysis
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were recurrence rate (proportion of
patients needing repeat intervention) and adverse effects associated with the intervention. Secondary outcomes were time to resumption
of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each
outcome; this is indicated in italics.
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review) 1
Main results
We included 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared
needle aspiration to incision and drainage.
All but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence
rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI)
1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I2 = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is
important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality.
None of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease
process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies.
Only three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient
was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence).
Time to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and
incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence).
Only three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication
reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%).
Symptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could
not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups.
One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for
symptom scores was very low.
Authors’ conclusions
Although a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in
patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains
uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle
aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Needle aspiration compared to incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (quinsy)
Review question
This review compared the effectiveness of the two main treatment options for peritonsillar abscess: needle aspiration and incision and
drainage.
Background
Peritonsillar abscesses are infections at the back of the throat in which a collection of pus (abscess) has formed next to the tonsil.
The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus
(inability to open the mouth completely). Treatment is usually by one of two methods. The first is needle aspiration (sucking the pus
out using a syringe and needle) and the second ’incision and drainage’ (putting a small knife into the abscess to let the pus drain out).
It remains unclear whether one type of treatment is better than the other.
Study characteristics
We included 11 studies with a total of 674 participants. The participants in the studies were aged from 8 to 79. The studies were
conducted in a number of countries (six from Pakistan, two from the USA, one from Taiwan and two from South Africa). All but one
of the 11 studies reported the difference in recurrence rate between needle aspiration and incision and drainage. Four studies compared
symptom scores associated with the procedure and two studies compared time to resumption of normal diet. Three studies reported
adverse effects/events associated with the intervention. Two studies reported complications of the disease process itself.
The evidence is current to August 2016.
Key results
Ten studies reported on the recurrence of peritonsillar abscess (our main outcome). Most of them did not clearly define ’recurrence’
and they varied in the timing of its assessment, however we were able to combine (pool) the data from these studies. When we pooled
the data the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage. It is important to note
that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality. Some studies found that patients had more pain when they had incision and
drainage.
Quality of the evidence
We identified problems or potential problems in all of the included studies. The most important of these was that the studies did not
all assess recurrence in the same way, at the same time, using the same criteria. The quality of the evidence for all of the outcomes that
we looked at was very low.
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review) S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S F O R T H E M A I N C O M P A R I S O N [Explanation]
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage f or the treatm ent of peritonsillar abscess
Patient or population: patients older than 8 years with peritonsillar abscess

Setting: inpatients and outpatients
Intervention: incision and drainage
Comparison: needle aspiration
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects∗ (95% CI) Relative effect of participants Quality of the evidence Comments
(studies) (GRADE)
Risk with incision and Risk with needle aspi-

drainage ration
Prim ary outcom e: re- Study population RR 3.74, 95% CI 1.63 to 612 ⊕ -
currence rate 8.59 (10 RCTs) very low 1,2
47 per 1000 245 per 1000
Prim ary outcom e: ad- One study reported post-procedural bleeding in 1 - 226 ⊕ Adverse ef f ects/ events
verse ef f ects/ events patient (3.6%) in the incision and drainage group, (3 RCTs) very low 2,3 were not m entioned
associated with the in- with no adverse ef f ects/ events reported in the as a pre-specif ied out-
terventions needle aspiration group. Two studies stated that com e m easure in any of
no com plications were seen in either group the studies
Secondary outcom e: One study f ound no dif f erence in the tim e to - 124 ⊕ -
tim e to resum ption of resum ption of norm al diet (m ean 3.7 days in (2 RCTs) very low 2,4
norm al diet both groups, no conf idence intervals provided).
Another study f ound that a sim ilar percentage of
patients returned to solid f ood within 4 days (87%:
needle aspiration, 88%: incision and drainage)
Secondary outcom e: One study described a com plication of 2 patients - 170 ⊕ Com plications of the
com plications of the requiring adm ission to hospital f or dehydration (2 RCTs) very low 2,5 disease process were
disease process in the incision and drainage group and no com pli- not m entioned as a
cations in the needle aspiration group. One study pre-specif ied outcom e
stated that no com plications were seen in either m easure in any of the
group studies
4
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess (Review)
Secondary outcom e: Procedural pain - Study 1 ⊕ -

sym ptom scores Study 1 110 participants very low 2,6
(M ultiple dif f erent out- Pain was less in the needle aspiration group: M D Study 2
com e scales used) -0.8, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.44 (10-point scale) 56 participants
Study 2 Study 3
Reported less pain in the needle aspiration group 62 participants
Pain resolution Study 4
Study 3 52
Pain resolution was sim ilar between groups at 5 participants
days post-intervention
Other symptoms
Study 4
Reported com parable sym ptom scores between
groups at presentation and 48 hours
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% conf idence interval) is based on the assum ed risk in the com parison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its
95% CI).
CI: conf idence interval; M D: m ean dif f erence; RCT: random ised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: We are very conf ident that the true ef f ect lies close to that of the estim ate of the ef f ect
M oderate quality: We are m oderately conf ident in the ef f ect estim ate: The true ef f ect is likely to be close to the estim ate of the ef f ect, but there is a possibility that it is
substantially dif f erent
Low quality: Our conf idence in the ef f ect estim ate is lim ited: The true ef f ect m ay be substantially dif f erent f rom the estim ate of the ef f ect
Very low quality: We have very little conf idence in the ef f ect estim ate: The true ef f ect is likely to be substantially dif f erent f rom the estim ate of ef f ect
1
Downgraded once due to serious risk of inconsistency (unexplained heterogeneity).
2 Downgraded twice due to very serious risk of bias (lim itations in study design).
3 Adverse event (post-procedural bleeding) was not well described.
4 Incom plete data (no standard deviations or conf idence intervals provided).
5 Adm ission to hospital f or rehydration is inherently subjective and depends on m ultiple clinical variables.
6 Downgraded once due to im precision and dif f erences in data reporting.
5
BACKGROUND promote drainage of the abscess. A patient with a peritonsillar ab-
scess is sometimes treated with a combination of these methods.
Description of the condition

Why it is important to do this review
Quinsy, better known as peritonsillar abscess, is one of the most
common abscesses treated by otolaryngologists. It is one of the Patients with a quinsy often present ’out of hours’ and in many
most common ear, nose and throat (ENT) emergencies seen in healthcare settings are first assessed and managed by doctors in
acute ENT clinics and emergency departments in hospitals. Peri- training. A survey in the UK showed that 60% of otolaryngol-
tonsillar abscesses are a collection of pus between the fibrous cap- ogists would use needle aspiration as their primary method for
sule of the tonsil and the superior constrictor muscles of the phar- draining a peritonsillar abscess. If the needle aspiration failed, 52%
ynx. A peritonsillar abscess tends to be unilateral (on one side) would then perform scalpel incision and drainage. The survey also
and is believed to arise from obstructed Weber glands within the showed geographic differences in the management of peritonsil-
superior pole of the tonsil or from acute tonsillitis (Johnson 2005). lar abscess (Mehanna 2002). In Singapore, a retrospective review
In the United States, the incidence is estimated to be 30 people showed that most patients were treated with scalpel incision and
per 100,000 per year, which accounts for about 45,000 cases per drainage (66%) (Ong 2004).
year (Herzon 1995). Peritonsillar abscess affects people of all ages There is no consensus regarding the best drainage procedure and
(Herzon 1995), and has a significant resource cost (Johnson 2005; each method has risks and benefits. Needle aspiration may poten-
Powell 2012). tially be less painful, cheaper and technically easier to perform;
Patients with a peritonsillar abscess present with fever, dysphagia, it can also double as a diagnostic method. Incision and drainage
trismus, otalgia, a change in the voice and ipsilateral throat pain. that includes blunt dissection theoretically promotes more effec-
On examination there is a swelling in the oropharynx with medi- tive drainage of the abscess by dissecting through the tissue barri-
alisation of the tonsil. Physical examination usually reveals uvu- ers (septations) that divide the abscess cavity into micro-cavities or
lar deviation to the contralateral side, tonsillar exudate, trismus loculations. The resulting wide pathway to the oral cavity allows
and jugulodigastric lymphadenopathy. Patients with peritonsillar air to enter the depths of the abscess cavity, increasing the oxygen
abscesses are at risk of extension of the abscess into deeper neck tension that in turn reduces the survival of anaerobic bacteria ex-
spaces and airway obstruction. A combination of symptoms and posed to air. However, it is a more invasive method and it has been
signs is the accepted basis for diagnosis. Further diagnostic in- suggested that it may carry a risk of aspiration of purulent material
vestigations are not generally used unless the peritonsillar abscess or incisional injury to underlying structures (Khayr 2005; Spires
presents with neck involvement (Powell 2012). In these circum- 1987). The method of drainage used may be associated with vary-
stances the most common diagnostic test is the computed tomog- ing degrees of abscess recurrence, pain and haemorrhage. A review
raphy (CT) scan. CT scans can accurately diagnose peritonsillar performed by Johnson et al concluded that needle aspiration was
abscesses with 100% sensitivity and help to determine the extent the best initial treatment, followed by incision and drainage if nee-
of the disease. Ultrasound is less useful, with a diagnostic accuracy dle aspiration failed (Johnson 2003). Since then, additional stud-
of 89% to 95% sensitivity and 79% to 100% specificity, based on ies on this subject have been undertaken, making it important to
level 3 evidence (Powell 2012). re-evaluate the available evidence. If there is an optimal drainage
procedure for peritonsillar abscesses, then it should be adopted
widely.
Description of the intervention
Treatment commonly involves drainage of the abscess together
with antibiotics, but there is no agreement on the optimal tech- OBJECTIVES
nique for initial drainage of a peritonsillar abscess (Hall 1990;
Herzon 1995; Johnson 2003). Physicians generally have a choice To assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus
between needle aspiration and incision and drainage, although incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in
quinsy tonsillectomy and antibiotic therapy alone are also less older children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.
commonly used treatment options. Needle aspiration uses a large-
bore needle inserted through the palatoglossus muscles into the
abscess. Several insertions of the needle in different locations may METHODS
be performed during a single treatment episode. The incision and
drainage method uses a guarded scalpel to incise the palatoglossus
muscle and enter the peritonsillar space/abscess. The peritonsillar Criteria for considering studies for this review
space is then opened widely by dissection with blunt forceps to
Types of studies Electronic searches
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Information Specialist searched:
• Cochrane ENT Trials Register (searched 25 August 2016);
• Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
Types of participants (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 7);
• Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 25 August 2016):
Adult or child patients (of eight years of age or older) with a clinical ◦ Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed
diagnosis of peritonsillar abscess. Citations);
◦ PubMed (as a top up to searches in Ovid MEDLINE);
• Ovid Embase (1974 to 2016 week 34);
Types of interventions • EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 25 August 2016);
Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage. • LILACS, lilacs.bvsalud.org (searched 25 August 2016);
We defined needle aspiration as either a single insertion or multi- • KoreaMed (searched via Google Scholar 25 August 2016);
ple insertions of a needle with aspiration during the same clinical • IndMed, www.indmed.nic.in (searched 25 August 2016);
procedure. We defined needle aspirations undertaken on subse- • PakMediNet, www.pakmedinet.com (searched 25 August
quent days or during a separate attendance at a healthcare facility 2016);
on the same day as repeat interventions. • Web of Knowledge, Web of Science (1945 to 25 August
We defined incision and drainage as incision of the pharyngeal 2016);
mucosa with or without any additional wound exploration to pro- • CNKI, www.cnki.com.cn (searched via Google Scholar 25
mote drainage. We considered ’confirmatory’ needle aspiration August 2016);
immediately prior to this procedure as part of the incision and • ClinicalTrials.gov (searched via the Cochrane Register of
drainage intervention. Studies 25 August 2016);
We considered antibiotic therapy as part of the intervention (nee- • World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical
dle aspiration or incision and drainage), as long as it was available Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), www.who.int/ictrp (searched
to both treatment groups. 25 August 2016);
• ISRCTN, www.isrctn.com (searched 25 August 2016);
• Google Scholar, scholar.google.co.uk (searched 25 August
Types of outcome measures 2016);
• Google, www.google.com (searched 25 August 2016).
The Information Specialist modelled subject strategies for

Primary outcomes databases on the search strategy designed for CENTRAL. Where
appropriate, they were combined with subject strategy adaptations
We analysed the following outcomes in the review, but we did not
of the highly sensitive search strategy designed by Cochrane for
use them as a basis for including or excluding studies.
identifying randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical tri-
• Recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat
als (as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
intervention)
Interventions Version 5.1.0, Box 6.4.b. (Handbook 2011). Search
• Adverse effects/events associated with the interventions
strategies for major databases including CENTRAL are provided
in Appendix 1.
Secondary outcomes
• Time to resumption of normal diet Searching other resources

• Complications of the disease process We scanned the reference lists of identified publications for ad-
• Symptom scores ditional trials and contacted trial authors where necessary. In ad-
dition, the Information Specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE, the
Cochrane Library and Google to retrieve existing systematic re-
views relevant to this systematic review, so that we could scan their
Search methods for identification of studies reference lists for additional trials.
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist conducted systematic
searches for randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical
trials. There were no language, publication year or publication
Data collection and analysis
status restrictions. The date of the search was 25 August 2016.
Selection of studies • 0% to 40%: might not be important;
Two authors (BAC and AT) independently reviewed all retrieved • 30% to 60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity;
articles and determine eligibility based on the inclusion criteria. • 50% to 90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity;
We resolved disagreements by consensus discussion. • 75% to 100%: considerable heterogeneity.
We planned meta-analysis for outcomes in which heterogeneity

Data extraction and management was less than 50%.
Two authors (BAC and AT) independently extracted data from
studies using standardised data forms. Briefly, extracted data items Assessment of reporting biases
included information on study design, study participants, study
characteristics, interventions and outcomes. We extracted data so We had intended the use of funnel plots to assess the potential for
as to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Where data were missing, reporting (publication) bias, if necessary. However, this was not
we wrote to the authors of the study to request further information. possible.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Data synthesis

BAC, AT and DAN undertook assessment of the risk of bias of the We had intended to use a fixed-effect model if there was minimal
trials being considered for inclusion independently, with the fol- heterogeneity in the included studies (less than 30%); otherwise
lowing taken into consideration, as guided by the Cochrane Hand- we used a random-effects model.
book for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Handbook 2011):
• sequence generation;
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
• allocation concealment;
• blinding; We had planned no subgroup analysis.
• incomplete outcome data;
• selective outcome reporting; and
Sensitivity analysis
• other sources of bias.
If there was any ambiguity regarding whether studies would meet
We used the Cochrane ’Risk of bias’ tool in RevMan 5.3 (RevMan the inclusion criteria or if study quality was insufficient, then we
2014), which involves describing each of these domains as reported had intended the use of sensitivity analysis (repetition of the anal-
in the trial and then assigning a judgement about the adequacy ysis with the inclusion of different data or trials due to decisions
of each entry: ’low’, ’high’ or ’unclear’ risk of bias. Each review that may have been arbitrary or unclear) (Handbook 2011).
author independently determined whether a study was sufficiently
free of bias in each domain and a majority decision determined
the ratings given. GRADE and ’Summary of findings’ table
Two authors independently used the GRADE approach to rate
Measures of treatment effect the overall quality of evidence. The quality of evidence reflects the
extent to which we are confident that an estimate of effect is correct
Recurrence (primary outcome) was measured as dichotomous
and we applied this in the interpretation of results. There are four
data. We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals to
possible ratings: high, moderate, low and very low. A rating of high
compare data. We planned to use the mean difference to assess
quality of evidence implies that we are confident in our estimate
continuous data. We had planned to use hazard ratios to assess
of effect and that further research is very unlikely to change our
time-to-event data.
confidence in the estimate of effect. A rating of very low quality
implies that any estimate of effect obtained is very uncertain.
Dealing with missing data The GRADE approach rates evidence from RCTs that do not have
We made attempts to contact original investigators to obtain any serious limitations as high quality. However, several factors can
missing data. We had planned sensitivity analysis to assess the lead to the downgrading of the evidence to moderate, low or very
impact of data that could not be obtained. low. The degree of downgrading is determined by the seriousness
of these factors:
• study limitations (risk of bias);
Assessment of heterogeneity • inconsistency;
We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic. Roughly, we used • indirectness of evidence;
the following thresholds as a guide to heterogeneity (RevMan • imprecision; and
2014): • publication bias.
We included a ’Summary of findings’ table, constructed ac- The literature search identified 370 potential records after dupli-
cording to the recommendations described in Chapter 10 of cates were removed. Of these, we deemed 17 eligible for full-text
the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions review. We identified one additional article from searching the ref-
(Handbook 2011). We included the following outcomes in the erence lists of these publications, yielding 18 total studies that we
’Summary of findings’ table: recurrence rate, adverse effects/events reviewed in full.
associated with the intervention, time to resumption of normal Eleven publications fulfilled the review’s inclusion criteria (Chi
diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; Maharaj 1991;
Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; Stringer 1988;
Younas 2015). We included these 11 studies in the review.
We excluded six studies (Fry 1987; Herzon 1995; Khayr 2005;
RESULTS Kulkarni 2013; Stringer 1986; Wolf 1994). See Excluded studies
and Characteristics of excluded studies.
One study, Tyagi 2011, is awaiting classification (see
Characteristics of studies awaiting classification). Currently, there
Description of studies
are no ongoing studies identified.
See Figure 1 for a PRISMA flow diagram depicting the search and
study selection process.
Results of the search
Figure 1. Process for sifting search results and selecting studies for inclusion.
Interventions
Included studies
All 11 studies compared needle aspiration with incision and
See Characteristics of included studies.
drainage (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015
Maharaj 1991; Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987;
Design Stringer 1988, Younas 2015). One study also compared a third
group treated only with intravenous antibiotics (Nwe 2000).
All of the included studies were randomised controlled trials; how-
ever, three of the studies were quasi-randomised (Khan 2012;
Maharaj 1991; Spires 1987). Maharaj 1991 and Khan 2012 allo- Outcomes
cated patients on an alternate basis. Spires 1987 only randomised
a portion of the patients. None of the trials were obviously blinded
in terms of the study personnel collecting follow-up data. Inten- Primary outcomes
tion-to-treat analysis was not specifically carried out.
All studies except one (Younas 2015) reported on recurrence rate (
Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; Maharaj 1991;
Sample sizes Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; Stringer 1988).
The numbers of participants in the included studies were as fol- However, the definition of recurrence was not well described. This
lows: 62 (Spires 1987), 52 (Stringer 1988), 60 (Maharaj 1991), is summarised in Table 1. Less than half of the studies provided a
75 (only 50 patients were in groups compared in this review) specific definition for recurrence. There was also wide variability
(Nwe 2000), 50 (Rafi 2007), 62 (Khan 2011), 56 (Khan 2012), in the method and timing of assessment for recurrence.
50 (Sheikh 2012), 110 (Chi 2014), 62 (Younas 2015) and 60 Only three studies made reference to plans to identify and report
(Khokhar 2015). Other than Khokhar 2015, no mention was any adverse events/effects associated with the intervention (Chi
made of sample size calculations in any of the studies to ensure 2014; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015).
that they were adequately powered.
Secondary outcomes
Setting Time to resumption of normal diet was reported by two studies
Nwe 2000 did not specify the setting of the study, although it was (Spires 1987; Younas 2015). Complications of the disease pro-
published in South Africa. Otherwise, all included studies took cess were mentioned in two studies, with Maharaj 1991 report-
place in a hospital setting. Khan 2011, Khan 2012, Khokhar 2015, ing two complications (dehydration requiring hospitalisation) and
Rafi 2007, Sheikh 2012 and Younas 2015 all took place in Pakistan Chi 2014 reporting no complications. Symptom scores were re-
and were undertaken with participants in an inpatient hospital ported by four studies (Chi 2014; Khan 2012; Stringer 1988;
setting. Chi 2014 took place in Taiwan and also had participants Younas 2015), each using different scales. Chi 2014 measured
admitted to hospital in an inpatient setting. The remaining studies pain intensity one hour after the procedure using a visual analogue
treated patients in an outpatient hospital setting: Maharaj 1991 score. Khan 2012 had patients grade their score as mild, moderate
(South Africa), Spires 1987 (USA) and Stringer 1988 (USA). or severe and measured proportions. Younas 2015 compared the
percentage of patients who had resolution of pain by five days af-
ter the intervention. Stringer 1988 scored patients according to a
Participants scale out of 5 (1 = eating normally, minimal to moderate pain; 2 =
Spires 1987 included patients aged 12 to 53, Stringer 1988 in- eating impaired, moderate pain; 3 = unable to eat solids, moderate
cluded patients aged 13 to 60, Nwe 2000 included patients aged to severe pain; 4 = unable to eat solids or liquids, severe pain; 5 =
15 to 43, Khan 2011 included patients aged 15 to 35, Khan 2012 unable to eat solids or liquids, severe pain, volume depletion).
included patients aged 16 to 50 and Chi 2014 included patients
aged 12 to 79. Rafi 2007 included patients aged 22 to 43 and
Sheikh 2012 included patients aged 18 to 51. Khokhar 2015 in- Excluded studies
cluded patients aged 17 to 53. Younas 2015 included patients aged After initial screening six studies did not meet the inclusion criteria
8 to 57. Maharaj 1991 included patients ranging from “under 14” (see Characteristics of excluded studies). One was classified as a
to “over 40”, and did not state how many were male or female. retrospective study (Wolf 1994). Two were classified as review
Nwe 2000 had a population that was 67% female; all the other papers (Herzon 1995; Khayr 2005). One study was classified as
studies had more male than female participants. a commentary (Fry 1987). We considered one study (Stringer
1986) an earlier publication of data in one of the included studies
(Stringer 1988). One study was found to be non-randomised (
Kulkarni 2013).
Risk of bias in included studies

The risk of bias of the included studies is shown in the
Characteristics of included studies table and summarised in Figure
2.
Figure 2. ’Risk of bias’ summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included
study.
Allocation
Other potential sources of bias
All 11 included studies were reportedly randomised. However, it We assessed all studies except one (Maharaj 1991) as having an un-
was not clear that proper random sequence generation had been clear risk of bias in this category due to concerns about methodol-
used in any of the studies (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; ogy. Specifically, five studies did not provide a definition for recur-
Maharaj 1991; Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; rence or criteria for re-intervention (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan
Younas 2015), other than Stringer 1988 and Khokhar 2015 who 2012; Khokhar 2015; Rafi 2007; Spires 1987). Two studies had
used a random numbers table. Additionally, two studies allocated subjective definitions of recurrence, including persistent trismus
participants on an alternate basis (Khan 2012; Maharaj 1991), and (Nwe 2000), “failure to improve visual symptoms score”, “visual
one based on hospital number (Spires 1987). Allocation conceal- evidence of a persistent abscess” (Stringer 1988) and “a reduction
ment was not specified to have been used in any of the studies (Chi in supra tonsillar swelling along with decrease in pain and also im-
2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; Maharaj 1991; provement in odynophagia” (Sheikh 2012). Four studies did not
Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; Younas 2015). specify the timing of assessment for recurrence (Chi 2014; Khan
Stringer 1988 reported not using any allocation concealment. 2011; Khan 2012; Rafi 2007).
Blinding
Effects of interventions
Blinding of participants or study personnel was either not used See: Summary of findings for the main comparison Needle
(Stringer 1988), or not specifically mentioned in any of the in- aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of
cluded studies (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; peritonsillar abscess
Maharaj 1991; Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; See Summary of findings for the main comparison.
Younas 2015).
Primary outcomes
Incomplete outcome data

Most studies did not specifically report losses to follow-up. Several Recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat
studies had patients admitted to hospital and we assumed in these intervention)
cases that there were no losses unless specifically stated (Chi 2014; Ten out of 11 of the included studies reported recurrence rate
Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012). Maharaj 1991 following needle aspiration versus incision and drainage (Chi
lost 18% of patients to follow-up on day one and 37% at day 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; Maharaj 1991;
seven. Patient losses were unclear in Spires 1987 and Nwe 2000. Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; Stringer 1988).
Khokhar 2015 excluded patients who failed to return for follow- There was wide variability in the recurrence rate in both groups.
up. No mention of intention-to-treat analysis was made in any of Recurrence in the needle aspiration group ranged from 4.9% to
the studies (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; 80.0%. In the incision and drainage group recurrence ranged from
Maharaj 1991; Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; 0% to 20%. The studies that reported recurrence all reported a
Stringer 1988; Younas 2015). In Younas 2015, there was a dis- comparable or higher recurrence rate with needle aspiration.
crepancy between the number of patients reportedly randomised Timing of assessment for recurrence was inconsistent. Specifically,
(62) and the number reported in the results (64); therefore, there timing of assessment for recurrence ranged from one day to seven
is a possibility of incomplete or missing data. days for initial post-intervention assessment. The timing of follow-
up was not actually specified in four of the studies (Chi 2014;
Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Rafi 2007). One study did not specifically
Selective reporting report recurrence rate (Younas 2015). An “initial success rate” was
None of the included studies had published study protocols with reported; however, this was not defined.
pre-specified outcomes. Stringer 1988 communicated that all mea- When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was
sured outcomes were reported in the published manuscript and, higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and
therefore, we deemed it at low risk of bias in this category. We drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63
judged all the other studies to have an unclear risk of bias in to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity
this category (Chi 2014; Khan 2011; Khan 2012; Khokhar 2015; in this analysis (I2 = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is
Maharaj 1991; Nwe 2000; Rafi 2007; Sheikh 2012; Spires 1987; important to note that the quality of evidence for this outcome
Stringer 1988; Younas 2015). was very low.
Adverse effects/events associated with the interventions 0.44, 10-point scale). Khan 2012 compared postoperative pain
Only one study reported an adverse outcome associated with the as measured by a “mild/moderate/severe” subjective grade. They
intervention (Khan 2012). In this study “reactionary haemor- reported a statistically significant higher proportion of patients
rhage” was described in one of 28 patients (3.6%) in the incision with higher pain scores in the incision and drainage group (needle
and drainage group. Chi 2014 and Khokhar 2015 stated that no aspiration: 50.0% mild, 28.6% moderate, 21.4% severe; incision
complications were seen in either group. No other studies reported and drainage: 17.9% mild, 21.4% moderate, 60.7% severe; P <
characterising adverse effects/events associated with the interven- 0.01). Outcome measures for these two studies were not compa-
tion. rable and, therefore, meta-analysis was not possible. Younas 2015
reported on pain five days after the intervention: 75% of patients
in the needle aspiration group had no pain, whereas 78% of pa-
Secondary outcomes tients treated with incision and drainage had no pain.
Other symptoms
Time to resumption of normal diet
One study reported symptom scores that were not directly related
Two studies specifically compared time to resumption of normal
to procedural pain (Stringer 1988). This study reported symptom
diet (Spires 1987; Younas 2015). Spires 1987 found no difference
scores at presentation and 48 hours (1 = eating normally, minimal
in the average time to resumption of a normal diet between the
to moderate pain; 2 = eating impaired, moderate pain; 3 = unable
needle aspiration versus the incision and drainage group (3.7 days,
to eat solids, moderate to severe pain; 4 = unable to eat solids or
range 1 to 14 days in the needle aspiration group versus 3.7 days,
liquids, severe pain; 5 = unable to eat solids or liquids, severe pain,
range 1 to 10 days in the incision and drainage group; no stan-
volume depletion). They found averages of 3.4 (needle aspiration)
dard deviation or statistics provided). Younas 2015 compared the
versus 3.3 (incision and drainage) at presentation and 1.3 (needle
percentage of patients that had returned to a semisolid or solid
aspiration) versus 1.4 (incision and drainage), and complete res-
diet within a certain time frame. They found that 87% of patients
olution of symptoms at 10 days post-treatment in all groups (no
treated with needle aspiration returned to semisolid food within
statistics or confidence intervals provided).
two days and solid food within four days. Comparatively, they
found that 88% of patients treated with needle aspiration returned
to semisolid food by two days and solid food by four days. Two
studies described “duration of symptoms” (Stringer 1988) or “pe-
riod of recovery” (Rafi 2007), but did not specifically define these DISCUSSION
terms.
Summary of main results

Complications of the disease process
Peritonsillar abscess is one of the most common ear, nose and
Complications relating to the disease process were generally not
throat (ENT) emergencies presenting to acute ENT services and
reported. Only one study described a complication in two patients
more often than not requires a procedural intervention as the mode
(6.7%) who required admission to hospital for dehydration (fol-
of treatment. Despite this, there remains uncertainty about which
lowing incision and drainage) (Maharaj 1991). Chi 2014 stated
technique - needle aspiration or incision and drainage - is more
that no complications were seen in either group. No other study
effective. There is an absence of high-quality evidence to show
specifically reported measuring complications of the disease pro-
whether or not one technique is superior to the other. There is very
cess.
low-quality evidence to suggest that there is a lower recurrence rate
with incision and drainage compared with needle aspiration. At
Symptom scores the same time, very low-quality evidence also suggests that needle
aspiration may be less painful than incision and drainage. There is
an absence of evidence to answer questions about adverse effects/
Pain events associated with the intervention, time to resumption of
normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom
Two studies reported on pain associated with the intervention. scores for factors other than pain.
Chi 2014 reported pain intensity one hour after the procedure
with visual analogue scores (out of 10) and found a statistically
lower amount of pain in the needle aspiration group (4.5 ± 0.8 in
the needle aspiration group versus 5.3 ± 1.1 in the incision and
Overall completeness and applicability of
drainage group; mean difference (MD) -0.8, 95% CI -1.16 to -
evidence
Data from the studies identified are insufficient to allow us to ad- A number of studies included in this review had recurrence rates
dress all of the objectives of this review and produce a clear and de- higher than we might normally expect from day-to-day practice.
cisive answer. The included studies have enrolled the relevant types In one study, the needle aspiration group had a recurrence rate
of participants. Whilst the studies do evaluate the interventions we as high as 80% (Rafi 2007). Khan 2012 had a recurrence rate as
sought to include, in some cases those interventions were part of high as 64% in the needle aspiration group. Several studies had
a treatment plan involving periods of hospitalisation and courses recurrence rates over 20% in the needle aspiration group (Khan
of intravenous or oral antibiotics (or both) of varying length. This 2011; Nwe 2000; Sheikh 2012). These recurrence rates differ sig-
is relevant because in some healthcare settings patients are almost nificantly from the recurrence rates reported in other published
invariably managed as outpatients without being admitted to hos- studies and from our experience. In the review by Powell 2012,
pital. Not all outcomes that we felt were important had been in- an overall recurrence rate for peritonsillar abscess of ~10% was
vestigated in the included studies. More significantly, the failure estimated with either needle aspiration or incision and drainage.
to define ’recurrence’ and to include comprehensive information This raises the question of the competence of the clinician or prac-
about the timing of any recurrence or its identification makes titioner managing the condition and the criteria for defining re-
the evidence base incomplete. In all cases, for those outcomes for currence, as well as the question of regional differences in peri-
which we found data, the evidence was of very low quality. tonsillar abscess presentation and management. Ideally, recurrence
There are likely to be geographic or institutional differences in the should be confirmed by evidence of pus at a repeat incision or nee-
presentation of peritonsillar abscess. Six out of 11 studies orig- dle aspiration procedure. The absence of clearly stated diagnostic
inated from the same country (Pakistan) (see Characteristics of criteria for peritonsillar abscess recurrence in the studies makes it
included studies). Different microbial patterns and choice of an- impossible to determine whether the same patients presenting to
timicrobial agents in different geographic areas could theoretically another clinician would be diagnosed as suffering from a recur-
influence recurrence rates. The different settings in which patients rence or the more common post-inflammatory oedema associated
were treated in the included studies highlights the potential for with a recent abscess.
variation through different management protocols; over half of the The heterogeneity encountered in our assessment of recurrence
included studies managed patients in an inpatient setting. Other rate, whilst only moderate (I2 = 48%), merits further discussion.
factors of relevance include the likelihood of seeking medical at- As mentioned earlier, most of the studies did not clearly define
tention, access to medical care and costs or thresholds for perform- ’recurrence’ and varied widely in the timing of post-intervention
ing a repeat intervention. recurrence assessment. Only four of the 10 studies that measured
In this review, we have not compared other treatment options recurrence provided a definition for what constituted ’recurrence’
for the management of patients with a peritonsillar abscess. So or specified criteria for re-intervention. Definitions of recurrence
called ’quinsy tonsillectomy’ or ’hot tonsillectomy’ is another op- included visual evidence of swelling (Stringer 1988), persistence of
tion available for treatment. We have not compared quinsy ton- pyrexia/trismus (Nwe 2000), or persistent odynophagia (Sheikh
sillectomy, given that it is less commonly performed as a first-line 2012). Only one study defined recurrence with reference to the
treatment (Qureshi 2015), and that different practical consider- review’s definition of an abscess, that is as “reaccumulation of pus”
ations guide the decision to perform it (such as patient age and (Maharaj 1991). This study did not describe how the presence
operating room resources). We have also not compared non-in- of pus was determined. Therefore, ’recurrence’ in the studies re-
terventional options, such as antibiotic therapy alone. This was viewed could be anything along a spectrum from simply some
done in order to answer a specific clinical question of interest, as residual symptoms to true reaccumulation of pus. Additionally, the
opposed to exploring all the available options for treating periton- timing of post-treatment assessment for recurrence was not stated
sillar abscesses. in four of the studies and was variable amongst the remaining
studies (ranging from post-procedure day 1 to 7). The inter-study
variation in the timing of post-treatment review and the criteria
Quality of the evidence used to diagnose peritonsillar abscess recurrence raises the ques-
tion of whether ’recurrence’ - unless much more clearly defined
Overall, the quality of evidence is very low for all the included
- is a valid outcome metric. Inter-study methodological variation
outcomes (assessed using the GRADE criteria, see Summary of
could account for the majority of the heterogeneity in recurrence
findings for the main comparison). The high risk of bias and flawed
rates. However, other factors may have contributed; it would be
design of the studies reviewed is apparent when they are analysed
reasonable to postulate that clinical variability also contributed to
using the Cochrane ’Risk of bias’ tool (Figure 2). The descriptions
the heterogeneity, given that there was wide inter-study variation
of the methods used in most studies lacked the detail required to
in treatment setting and adjunctive variables.
assess risk of bias completely. None of this review’s predetermined
There is inherent operator variability in the delivery of the primary
outcome measures were well assessed by any of the trials. The
intervention itself. In many settings care for patients with quinsy
specific criteria for determining recurrence were poorly defined in
is delivered by relatively junior doctors. We have defined the inter-
all of the studies.
ventions as above (Types of interventions). However, differences Implications for practice
in operator skill may partly explain differences in the outcome of
Currently, only very low-quality evidence is available to determine
the interventional studies. Variation in the timing of patient pre-
whether needle aspiration or incision and drainage is most effective
sentation for health care, co-treatment factors such as antibiotic
for treating peritonsillar abscess. This suggests that incision and
choice, and access and compliance with the prescribed antibiotic
drainage is associated with a lower recurrence rate. The absence of
regimen in these studies, which are drawn from countries with di-
high-quality evidence results in a dilemma for practitioners and
vergent healthcare resources, may also account for heterogeneous
patients. Through shared and informed decision-making, practi-
outcomes. Limited methodological descriptions and our inability
tioners and patients must balance the potential - but uncertain -
to gain further information from the authors make it difficult to
benefit of an incision and drainage procedure, which may be more
explore these possible explanations.
painful, against needle aspiration, which may have of a greater
One of the theoretical arguments against incision and drainage is
chance of recurrence but be potentially less painful.
that it is a more painful procedure for patients. Given that incision
and drainage often involves a diagnostic needle aspiration in addi-
Implications for research
tion to further procedural intervention, it is understandable that
this theory exists. In our review, two studies (n = 166) did suggest A sufficiently powered, well-designed, high-quality study is re-
that subjective pain scores were higher in patients who underwent quired to compare the effectiveness of needle aspiration with in-
incision and drainage compared to needle aspiration (Chi 2014; cision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscesses. If
Khan 2012). One study showed comparable resolution of pain at a randomised controlled clinical trial were conducted, it would
five days post-treatment (Younas 2015). Given that this was as- be useful to compare recurrence (in a strictly defined manner),
sessed at five days after the procedure, it is difficult to separate the adverse events/effects associated with the intervention, time until
pain associated with the procedure from the resolution of pain as- resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process
sociated with improvement of the disease process. Different mea- and symptom scores.
surement scales made pooled analysis impractical. However, the
data are of limited quality for the reasons mentioned above and,
therefore, this remains unclear.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Potential biases in the review process We would like to acknowledge Cochrane ENT for their helpful
guidance and input.
We think it is unlikely that there have been significant biases in
the review process itself. Whilst it is likely that all or most relevant This project was supported by the National Institute for Health
studies have been identified, our failure to identify useable data Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure, Cochrane Programme
from each included study has been universal. A few minor post hoc Grant or Cochrane Incentive funding to Cochrane ENT. The
changes to the methods we had planned at protocol stage (Chang views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and
2014) are described in Differences between protocol and review. do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Pro-
gramme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Keir J, Almeyda R, Bowyer D and Wilbourn M were authors of
the original protocol (withdrawn in 2011). New authors took over
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS the review in 2014, publishing a new protocol (Chang 2014).
REFERENCES
References to studies included in this review aspiration versus incision and drainage. Pakistan Journal of
Medical & Health Sciences 2011;5(4):699–701. [4492594]
Chi 2014 {published data only} Khan 2012 {published data only}
Chi TH, Yuan CH, Tsao YH. Comparison of needle Khan MI, Iqbal K, Muhammad. Peritonsillar abscess:
aspiration with incision and drainage for the treatment comparison of outcome of incision and drainage versus
of peritonsillar abscess. WIMJ Open 2014;1(1):11–3. needle aspiration. Gomal Journal of Medical Sciences 2012;
[4492592] 10(2):205–8. [4492596]
Khan 2011 {published data only} Khokhar 2015 {published data only}
Khan Q, Hamza A, Haleem G, Wahid FI. Comparative Khokhar MR, Raza SN, Ayaz SB. Comparison of efficacy
study of management of peritonsillar abscess by needle of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage in
management of peritonsillar abscess. Pakistan Armed Forces Stringer 1986 {published data only}
Medical Journal 2015;65:172–7. [4492598] Stringer SP, Schaefer SD, Close LG. A randomized trial
Maharaj 1991 {published data only} for outpatient management of peritonsillar abscess.
Maharaj D, Rajah V, Hemsley S. Management of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 1986;114(3):
peritonsillar abscess. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 296–8. [4492622]
1991;105:743–5. [4492600] Wolf 1994 {published data only}
Nwe 2000 {published data only} Wolf M, Even-Chen I, Kronenberg J. Peritonsillar abscess:
Nwe TT, Singh B. Management of pain in peritonsillar repeated needle aspiration versus incision and drainage.
abscess. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2000;114: Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 1994;103(7):
765–7. [4492602] 554–7. [4492624]
Rafi 2007 {published data only} References to studies awaiting assessment
Rafi T, Farooq MU, Sheikh HU. Comparative study of
management of peritonsillar abscess by needle aspiration Tyagi 2011 {published data only}
versus incision and drainage. Journal of Surgery Pakistan Tyagi V, Kaushal A, Garg D, De S, Nagpure P. Treatment of
2007;12(3):126–8. [4492604] peritonsillar abscess: a prospective study of aspiration versus
Sheikh 2012 {published data only} incision and drainage. Calcutta Medical Journal 2011;9(3):
Sheikh ZA, Najam A, Ahmed A. Needle aspiration an equal e3. [4492626]
to incision and drainage in management of peritonsillar
abscess. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal 2012;62(2): Additional references
online. [4492606]
Hall 1990
Spires 1987 {published data only}
Hall SF. Peritonsillar abscess: the treatment options. Journal
Spires JR, Owens JJ, Woodson GE, Miller RH. Treatment
of Otolaryngology 1990;19:226–9.
of peritonsillar abscess. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head &
Neck Surgery 1987;113:984–6. [4492608] Handbook 2011
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook
Stringer 1988 {published data only}
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0
Stringer SP, Schaefer SD, Close LG. A randomized trial for
[updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration,
outpatient management of peritonsillar abscess. Archives of
2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery 1988;114(3):296–8.
[4492610] Johnson 2003
Younas 2015 {published data only} Johnson RF, Stewart MG, Wright CC. An evidence
Younas M. Satisfaction of patients with peritonsillar based review of the treatment of peritonsillar abscess.
abscess with permucosal needle aspiration versus incision Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2003;128(3):
& drainage. Medical Forum Monthly 2015;26(3):37–9. 332–43.
[4492612] Johnson 2005
Johnson RF, Stewart MG. The contemporary approach to
References to studies excluded from this review diagnosis and management of peritonsillar abscess. Current
Fry 1987 {published data only} Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery 2005;
13:157–60.
Fry TL. A randomized trial for outpatient management of
peritonsillar abscess. Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head and Mehanna 2002
Neck Surgery 1987;113(1):19. [4492614] Mehanna HM, Al-Bahnasawi L, White A. National audit
of the management of peritonsillar abscess. Postgraduate
Herzon 1995 {published data only}
Medical Journal 2002;78(923):545–8.
Herzon FS. Peritonsillar abscess: incidence, current
management practices, and a proposal for treatment Ong 2004
guidelines. Laryngoscope 1995;105:1–17. [4492616] Ong YK, Goh YH, Lee YL. Peritonsillar infections: local
experience. Singapore Medical Journal 2004;45(3):105–9.
Khayr 2005 {published data only}
Khayr W, Taepke J. Management of peritonsillar abscess: Powell 2012
needle aspiration versus incision and drainage versus Powell J, Wilson JA. An evidence-based review of
tonsillectomy. American Journal of Therapeutics 2005;12: peritonsillar abscess. Clinical Otolaryngology 2012;37(2):
344–50. [4492618] 136–45. [PUBMED: 22321140]
Kulkarni 2013 {published data only} Qureshi 2015
Kulkarni V, Patel T. Management of peritonsillar abscess: Qureshi H, Ference E, Novis S, Pritchett CV, Smith SS,
comparative prospective study of needle aspiration and Schroeder JW. Trends in the management of pediatric
incision & drainage in central Indian population. Asian peritonsillar abscess infections in the U.S., 2000-2009.
Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences 2013;3 International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2015;
(18):61–3. [4492620] 79(4):527–31.
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.
Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen:
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,
2014.
References to other published versions of this review
Chang 2014
Chang BA, Thamboo A, Diamond C, Nunez DA.
treatment of peritonsillar abscess. Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/
14651858.CD006287.pub3]
∗
Indicates the major publication for the study
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Chi 2014
Methods Allocation: randomised trial

Design: parallel-group
Participants Number randomised: 110

Age range: 12 to 79
Gender: 89% males
Setting: hospital, Taiwan
Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of peritonsillar abscess
Exclusion criteria: none stated
Participant characteristics: mean age = 31.0 ± 15.0 years, days of symptoms prior to
presentation = 4.7 ± 2.8
Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage

Intervention group: needle aspiration
n = 55
Comparator group: incision and drainage
n = 55
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics, intravenous hydration
Outcomes 1. Recurrence rate

2. Length of hospital stay
3. Pain score
(Outcomes not specified as primary/secondary)
Funding sources Not specified
Declarations of interest Not specified
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: none
Risk of bias
Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Quote: “Patients were randomly divided
bias) into two groups...”
Comment: specific method of randomisa-
tion not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Allocation concealment not specified
Blinding of participants and personnel High risk No mention of blinding made; probably
(performance bias) not done
All outcomes
Chi 2014 (Continued)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection High risk No mention of blinding made; probably
bias) not done
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk All patients presumably accounted for (ad-
All outcomes mitted as inpatients); no dropouts stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit a judge-
ment of high or low risk
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risk of
bias. Incomplete methodological descrip-
tion (definition of recurrence/criteria for
re-intervention not described, timing of as-
sessment for recurrence not described)
Khan 2011
Methods Allocation: randomised trial, alternation


Age range: 15 to 35
Gender: 74% males
Setting: hospital, Pakistan
Inclusion criteria: not specifically stated
Exclusion criteria: other associated illness
Participant characteristics: mean age = 24.6 years

n = 31
n = 31
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics (injection benzyl penicillin and metron-
idazole), analgesics

Khan 2011 (Continued)
Notes Needle aspiration failures treated with incision and drainage

Participants lost to follow-up: none
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Unclear risk Randomisation method not specified
bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No allocation concealment specified
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Khan 2012
Methods Allocation: randomised trial, alternation


Age range: 16 to 50
Gender: 71% males
Eligibility criteria: age > 15 years with peritonsillar abscess
Exclusion criteria: patients with bleeding disorders, acute follicular tonsillitis

n = 28
Khan 2012 (Continued)

n = 28
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics (intravenous amoxicillin/clavulanate and
metronidazole), povidone-iodine (Pyodine) mouth wash, intravenous crystalloid (if nec-
essary)

2. Symptom score
Funding sources None stated
Declarations of interest None declared
Notes Alternate basis randomisation

Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Alternate basis randomisation

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Alternate basis randomisation
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Khokhar 2015

Participants Number randomised: 70 (data reported on 60)

Age range: 17 to 53
Gender: 76.7% males
Setting: military hospital, Pakistan
Inclusion criteria: “clinical diagnosis of PTA was made on clinical features of unitonsillar
erythema, swelling, odynophagia (pain on swallowing), uvular deviation towards the
opposite direction and trismus”, age ≥ 15
Exclusion criteria: “patients with a history of bleeding disorders or diabetes mellitus,
on anticoagulant drugs or diagnosed with immunodeficiency disorders or who refused
to undergo the procedure under local anesthesia”; “Patients failing to follow up were
excluded from this study”
Participant characteristics: mean age 32.7

n = 35
n = 35
Use of additional interventions:
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics and analgesia ((a) co-amoxiclav 1.2 g intra-
venously 8-hourly and metronidazole 500 mg intravenously 8-hourly for 3 days, fol-
lowed by oral co-amoxiclav 1 g twice daily and metronidazole 400 mg 3 times a day for
the next 4 days, (b) paracetamol 1 g 8-hourly orally “for fever and analgesia”)
Outcomes 1. Time of resolution of odynophagia (days)

2. Fever - time to resolution (days)
Above information used to define “Recovery period” as “time taken to settle both
odynophagia and fever”
3. Recurrence
4. Complications
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: “Patients failing to follow up were excluded from this
study”
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Used a “random numbers table”
bias)
Khokhar 2015 (Continued)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not certain if random numbers table was
open
Blinding of participants and personnel High risk No mention of blinding; probably not done
(performance bias)
All outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection High risk No mention of blinding; probably not done
bias)
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk 1. “Patients, who had cultured organisms
All outcomes resistant to [the] antibiotics [named above]
were excluded from the study”
2. “Patients failing to follow up were ex-
cluded from this study”
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risk of bias
Maharaj 1991
Methods Allocation: randomised, alternation


Age range: “under 14” to “over 40”
Gender: not specified
Setting: hospital, South Africa
Inclusion criteria: positive needle aspiration
Exclusion criteria: negative needle aspiration
Participant characteristics: mean age not provided, “all patients presented with some
degree of odynophagia and drooling of saliva”, 47% had trismus and 27% had pyrexia

n = 30
n = 30
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics (penicillin), analgesics, mouthwash (un-
specified)

Maharaj 1991 (Continued)
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: 11 (18%) at day 1, 22 (37%) at day 7
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk Randomised on alternate basis

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Randomised on alternate basis
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) High risk 82% of patients followed up on day 1 post-
All outcomes treatment and 63% followed up on day 7
Other bias Low risk No other sources of bias identified
Nwe 2000

Participants Number randomised: 75 (only 50 patients were in groups compared in this review)
Age range: 15 to 43
Gender: 33% males
Setting: South Africa
Inclusion criteria: not described
Participant characteristics: “unilateral swelling of the tonsil and soft palate, and medial
displacement of the uvula”, “all patients were pyrexial”
Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage versus intravenous antibiotics alone
Intervention group: intravenous antibiotics
n = 25
Nwe 2000 (Continued)
Comparator group 1: needle aspiration

n = 25
Comparator group 2: incision and drainage
n = 25
Use of additional interventions: single dose of intravenous antibiotics
Outcomes 1. Distance between upper and lower incisor teeth (degree of trismus)
2. Body temperature
3. Ability to drink water
4. Microbiology cultures
5. Treatment failures (recurrence)
Funding sources None stated
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: unclear
Risk of bias
bias)
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Attrition not clear, dropouts not men-
All outcomes tioned
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risk of bias
Rafi 2007


Age range: 22 to 43
Gender: 94% males
Inclusion criteria: “peritonsillar abscess”
Participant characteristics: “all the patients were otherwise healthy and young with no
immune compromising disease”, no patients with previous peritonsillar abscess

n = 25
n = 25
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics (lincomycin)

3. “Period of recovery”
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: none
Risk of bias
bias)
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Rafi 2007 (Continued)
Sheikh 2012


Age range: 18 to 51
Gender: 62% males
Inclusion criteria: “presented with peritonsillar abscess”
Exclusion criteria: diabetics, less than 18 years old

n = 25
n = 25
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics, chlorhexidine mouth wash
Outcomes Primary outcome: recurrence rate

Secondary outcomes: none
Notes Needle aspiration failures treated with incision and drainage

Risk of bias
bias)
Sheikh 2012 (Continued)
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risk of bias.
Subjective definition of recurrence/criteria
for re-intervention
Spires 1987


Age range: 12 to 53
Gender: “2:1 male predilection”
Setting: hospital, USA
Inclusion criteria: not specified
Exclusion criteria: not specified
Participant characteristics: median age = 24; 1 patient with bilateral abscesses

n = 41
n = 21
Use of additional interventions: analgesics, antibiotics (penicillin V or cephalexin or
erythromycin)

2. Time to resumption of normal diet
Spires 1987 (Continued)
Notes Only partial randomisation

Participants lost to follow-up: unclear
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection High risk First 15 participants treated with needle as-
bias) piration, then patients were subsequently
randomised
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Randomised by hospital number
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Attrition not clear, dropouts not men-
All outcomes tioned
re-intervention not described)
Stringer 1988


Age range: 13 to 60
Gender: 60% males
Setting: hospital, USA
Inclusion criteria: positive needle aspiration
Exclusion criteria: negative needle aspiration
Participant characteristics: mean age = 27 years average duration of symptoms prior to
presentation = 5.3 days
Stringer 1988 (Continued)

n = 24
n = 28
Use of additional interventions: antibiotics (initial dose of intramuscular penicillin G
followed by intramuscular penicillin G or oral penicillin V for 10 days), erythromycin/
cephalosporin/clindamycin if allergic

2. Symptom score
Notes Authors contacted and further information/clarification obtained

Participants lost to follow-up: unclear
Risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection Low risk Random numbers table

bias)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk No allocation concealment performed
Blinding of participants and personnel High risk Blinding not performed

(performance bias)
All outcomes
bias) not done
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Low risk No dropouts mentioned

All outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All measured outcomes stated to have been
reported
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risk of bias.
Subjective definition of recurrence/criteria
for re-intervention
Younas 2015

Participants Number randomised: 62 (discrepant total = 64 in results)

Age range: 8 to 57
Gender: 61.3% male
Eligibility criteria: “clinically diagnosed for peritonsillar abscess”
Participant characteristics: average duration of symptoms prior to presentation = 6
days; 84% treated with antibiotics prior to presentation
Interventions Intervention group: needle aspiration

n = 32
Intervention group: incision and drainage
n = 32
Use of additional interventions: not stated
Outcomes 1. “Success” - not defined

2. Length of time to return to semisolid/solid food (days)
3. Proportion with “no pain by 05 days” (%)
4. Length of hospital stay (days)
Notes Participants lost to follow-up: unclear
Risk of bias
bias)
Blinding of participants and personnel High risk No mention of blinding; probably not done
(performance bias)
All outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection High risk No mention of blinding; probably not done
bias)
All outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Unclear risk Attrition not clear; dropouts not men-
All outcomes tioned; numbers in methods and results do
not match
Younas 2015 (Continued)
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough data to assess other risks of bias
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
Study Reason for exclusion
Fry 1987 Commentary
Herzon 1995 Review paper
Khayr 2005 Review paper
Kulkarni 2013 Participants were not randomised: “All patients were divided in two groups according to surgical procedures carried
out”. While the study states that this was a prospective study, it seems that outcomes were assessed retrospectively
Stringer 1986 Considered a duplicate publication of Stringer 1988
Wolf 1994 Retrospective study
Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]
Tyagi 2011
Methods -
Participants -
Interventions -
Outcomes -
Notes Study not available at this time. This study was inaccessible by all attempted means, including contact with the
journal editor
DATA AND ANALYSES
Comparison 1. Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage
No. of No. of
Outcome or subgroup title studies participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Rate of recurrence 10 612 Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI) 3.74 [1.63, 8.59]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage, Outcome 1 Rate of recurrence.
Review: Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess
Comparison: 1 Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage
Outcome: 1 Rate of recurrence
Study or subgroup Needle aspiration Incision and drainage Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
M- M-
H,Random,95% H,Random,95%
n/N n/N CI CI
Chi 2014 6/55 0/55 6.2 % 13.00 [ 0.75, 225.30 ]
Khan 2011 8/31 0/31 6.4 % 17.00 [ 1.02, 282.30 ]
Khan 2012 18/28 2/28 14.3 % 9.00 [ 2.30, 35.20 ]
Khokhar 2015 4/30 2/30 12.4 % 2.00 [ 0.40, 10.11 ]
Maharaj 1991 4/30 3/30 14.0 % 1.33 [ 0.33, 5.45 ]
Nwe 2000 6/25 0/25 6.3 % 13.00 [ 0.77, 219.11 ]
Rafi 2007 20/25 0/25 6.6 % 41.00 [ 2.62, 642.78 ]
Sheikh 2012 7/25 5/25 17.4 % 1.40 [ 0.51, 3.82 ]
Spires 1987 2/41 0/21 5.8 % 2.62 [ 0.13, 52.20 ]
Stringer 1988 2/24 2/28 10.6 % 1.17 [ 0.18, 7.67 ]
Total (95% CI) 314 298 100.0 % 3.74 [ 1.63, 8.59 ]

Total events: 77 (Needle aspiration), 14 (Incision and drainage)
Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.77; Chi2 = 17.22, df = 9 (P = 0.05); I2 =48%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.10 (P = 0.0019)
Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Recurrence: incision and drainage Recurrence: needle aspiration
ADDITIONAL TABLES
Table 1. Definition of recurrence and timing
Study ID Definition of recurrence or criteria for re-intervention Timing of assessment of recurrence

described
Spires 1987 No 2, 7 days (2x returned day 1)
Stringer 1988 “Failure to improve symptom scale score; visual evidence 1, 2 days (24, 48 hours)
of a persistent abscess”
Maharaj 1991 “reaccumulation of pus” 1, 7 days
Nwe 2000 “patients in whom the trismus and pyrexia persisted 48 2 days (48 hours)
hours after the initial treatment”
Rafi 2007 No Not stated
Khan 2011 No Not stated
Khan 2012 No Not stated
Sheikh 2012 Yes* 0, 1, 2 days
Chi 2014 No Not stated
Khokhar 2015 No “during the course of the study”, 7, 14 days
Younas 2015 N/A N/A

* “Improvement in patients was determined by examining the patient the next day after the procedure, a reduction in supra tonsillar
swelling along with decrease in pain and also improvement in odynophagia were taken as criteria of improvement and termination
of surgical attempts.”
N/A: not available
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Search strategies
CENTRAL Ovid MEDLINE EMBASE
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Peritonsillar Ab- 1 exp Peritonsillar Abscess/ 1 exp Peritonsillar Abscess/
scess] explode all trees 2 ((abscess* adj5 tonsil*) or (abscess* adj5 2 ((abscess* adj5 tonsil*) or (abscess* adj5
#2 abscess* near tonsil* or abscess* near peritonsil*) or (abscess* adj5 retrotonsil*)) peritonsil*) or (abscess* adj5 retrotonsil*))
peritonsil* or abscess* near retrotonsil* or .ab,ti .ab,ti
abscess* near peri-tonsil* 3 ((suppurat* adj5 tonsil*) or (suppurat* 3 ((suppurat* adj5 tonsil*) or (suppurat*
#3 suppurat* near tonsil* or suppurat* near adj5 peritonsil*) or (suppurat* adj5 retro- adj5 peritonsil*) or (suppurat* adj5 retro-
peritonsil* or suppurat* near retrotonsil* or tonsil*) or (suppurat* adj5 peri-tonsil*)). tonsil*) or (suppurat* adj5 peri-tonsil*)).
suppurat* near peri-tonsil* ab,ti ab,ti
#4 sepsis near tonsil* or sepsis near periton- 4 ((sepsis adj5 tonsil*) or (sepsis adj5 peri- 4 ((sepsis adj5 tonsil*) or (sepsis adj5 peri-
sil* or sepsis near retrotonsil* or sepsis near tonsil*) or (sepsis adj5 retrotonsil*) or (sep- tonsil*) or (sepsis adj5 retrotonsil*) or (sep-
peri-tonsil* sis adj5 peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti sis adj5 peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti
#5 septic near tonsil* or septic near peri- 5 ((septic adj5 tonsil*) or (septic adj5 peri- 5 ((septic adj5 tonsil*) or (septic adj5 peri-
tonsil* or septic near retrotonsil* or septic tonsil*) or (septic adj5 retrotonsil*) or (sep- tonsil*) or (septic adj5 retrotonsil*) or (sep-
near peri-tonsil* tic adj5 peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti tic adj5 peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti
#6 pus near tonsil* or pus near peritonsil* 6 ((pus adj5 tonsil*) or (pus adj5 periton- 6 ((pus adj5 tonsil*) or (pus adj5 periton-
or pus near retrotonsil* or pus near peri- sil*) or (pus adj5 retrotonsil*) or (pus adj5 sil*) or (pus adj5 retrotonsil*) or (pus adj5
tonsil* peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti peri-tonsil*)).ab,ti
#7 infect* near peritonsil* or infect* near 7 ((infect* adj5 peritonsil*) or (infect* adj5 7 ((infect* adj5 peritonsil*) or (infect* adj5
retrotonsil* or infect* near peri-tonsil* retrotonsil*) or (infect* adj5 peri-tonsil*)). retrotonsil*) or (infect* adj5 peri-tonsil*)).
#8 acute near peritonsil* or acute near ab,ti ab,ti
retrotonsil* or acute near peri-tonsil* 8 ((acute adj5 peritonsil*) or (acute adj5 8 ((acute adj5 peritonsil*) or (acute adj5
#9 quinsy or “interval tonsil*” retrotonsil*) or (acute adj5 peri-tonsil*)). retrotonsil*) or (acute adj5 peri-tonsil*)).
#10 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or # ab,ti ab,ti
7 or #8 or #9 9 (quinsy or “interval tonsil*”).ab,ti. 9 (quinsy or “interval tonsil*”).ab,ti.
10 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 10 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9
CINAHL Web of Science ClinicalTrials.gov
S10 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR #1 TOPIC: (abscess* near/5 tonsil* or ab- ((abscess OR sepsis OR septic OR pus OR
S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 scess* near/5 peritonsil* or abscess* near/5 infect OR acute) AND (tonsil* OR peri-
S9 quinsy or “interval tonsil*” retrotonsil* or abscess* near/5 peri-tonsil*) tonsil* OR retrotonsil* OR per-tonsil*))
S8 acute N5 peritonsil* or acute N5 retro- #2 TOPIC: (suppurat* near/5 tonsil* or OR quinsy OR “interval tonsil”
tonsil* or acute N5 peri-tonsil* suppurat* near/5 peritonsil* or suppurat*
S7 infect* N5 peritonsil* or infect* N5 near/5 retrotonsil* or suppurat* near/5
retrotonsil* or infect* N5 peri-tonsil* peri-tonsil*)
S6 pus N5 tonsil* or pus N5 peritonsil* or #3 TOPIC: (sepsis near/5 tonsil* or sepsis
pus N5 retrotonsil* or pus N5 peri-tonsil* near/5 peritonsil* or sepsis near/5 retroton-
S5 TX septic N5 tonsil* or septic N5 peri- sil* or sepsis near/5 peri-tonsil*)
tonsil* or septic N5 retrotonsil* or septic #4 TOPIC: (septic near/5 tonsil* or septic
N5 peri-tonsil* near/5 peritonsil* or septic near/5 retroton-
S4 TX sepsis N5 tonsil* or sepsis N5 peri- sil* or septic near/5 peri-tonsil*)
tonsil* or sepsis N5 retrotonsil* or sepsis #5 TOPIC: (pus near/5 tonsil* or pus near/
N5 peri-tonsil* 5 peritonsil* or pus near/5 retrotonsil* or
S3 TX suppurat* N5 tonsil* or suppurat* pus near/5 peri-tonsil*)
(Continued)
N5 peritonsil* or suppurat*i N5 retroton- #6 TOPIC: (infect* near/5 peritonsil* or

sil* or suppurat* N5 peri-tonsil* infect* near/5 retrotonsil* or infect* near/
S2 TX abscess* N5 tonsil* or abscess* N5 5 peri-tonsil*)
peritonsil* or abscess* N5 retrotonsil* or #7 TOPIC: (acute near/5 peritonsil* or
abscess* N5 peri-tonsil* acute near/5 retrotonsil* or acute near/5
S1 (MH “Peritonsillar Abscess”) peri-tonsil*)
#8 TOPIC: (quinsy or “interval tonsil*”)
#9 #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #
3 OR #2 OR #1
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 4, 2006
Review first published: Issue 12, 2016
Date Event Description
30 June 2014 New citation required and major changes New authors. Withdrawn protocol redrafted, updated and republished
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
Brent A Chang: literature searching, study selection, data collection, data management, ’Risk of bias’ assessment, data analysis, data
interpretation, drafting the protocol and review.
Andrew Thamboo: literature searching, study selection, data collection, data management, ’Risk of bias’ assessment, data analysis, data
interpretation, drafting the protocol and review.
Chris Diamond: protocol design, content expertise, revising the protocol and review, critical appraisal and study selection.
Martin J Burton: content expertise, data interpretation, revising the review.
Desmond A Nunez: protocol design, ’Risk of bias’ assessment, content expertise, revising the protocol and review.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Brent A Chang: none to declare.
Andrew Thamboo: none to declare.
Chris Diamond: none to declare.
Martin J Burton: Professor Martin Burton is joint Co-ordinating Editor of Cochrane ENT, but had no role in the editorial sign-off
this review, which was carried out by Cochrane ENT’s second Co-ordinating Editor.
Desmond A Nunez: none to declare.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
• No sources of support supplied
External sources
• National Institute for Health Research, UK.
Infrastructure funding for Cochrane ENT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW

We widened the age criteria for participants in included studies based on post hoc review. A number of studies included older child
(generally > 8 years old), adolescent and adult participants. Stratified data by age group (adults versus adolescents) were not available in
any of the studies. Given that adolescents and older children with peritonsillar abscess are often managed similarly to adults, we thought
that the review would also be applicable to this age group. Younger patients typically require a general anaesthetic for management and,
therefore, have different practical considerations for intervention. We therefore made a decision to include trials with older children
(age > 8), adolescents and adults.
We added the methods for the creation of a ’Summary of findings’ table and GRADE assessment to the review after the protocol was
published.
We also added a standard statement to clarify the role of outcomes in the review (Types of outcome measures).
NOTES
The original protocol was withdrawn from Issue 11, 2011 of theCochrane Library onwards as the authors were unable to continue with
the review. A new protocol by new authors was published in 2014 (Chang 2014).

Chang 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chang 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chang 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the

Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ, Diamond C, Nunez DA

Chang BA, Thamboo A, Burton MJ, Diamond C, Nunez DA.

Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the

Editorial group: Cochrane ENT Group.

Data collection and analysis

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Patient or population: patients older than 8 years with peritonsillar abscess

Risk with incision and Risk with needle aspi-

Secondary outcom e: Procedural pain - Study 1 ⊕ -

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

Description of the condition

The Information Specialist modelled subject strategies for

• Time to resumption of normal diet Searching other resources

We planned meta-analysis for outcomes in which heterogeneity

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Data synthesis

Risk of bias in included studies

Incomplete outcome data

Summary of main results

References to other published versions of this review

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Methods Allocation: randomised trial

Participants Number randomised: 110

Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage

Outcomes 1. Recurrence rate

Funding sources Not specified

Declarations of interest Not specified

Notes Participants lost to follow-up: none

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

Methods Allocation: randomised trial, alternation

Participants Number randomised: 62

Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage

Outcomes 1. Recurrence rate

Funding sources Not specified

Declarations of interest Not specified

Notes Needle aspiration failures treated with incision and drainage

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No allocation concealment specified

Methods Allocation: randomised trial, alternation

Participants Number randomised: 56

Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage

Comparator group: incision and drainage

Outcomes 1. Recurrence rate

Funding sources None stated

Declarations of interest None declared

Notes Alternate basis randomisation

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection High risk Alternate basis randomisation

Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Alternate basis randomisation

Methods Allocation: randomised trial

Participants Number randomised: 70 (data reported on 60)

Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage

Outcomes 1. Time of resolution of odynophagia (days)

Funding sources Not specified

Declarations of interest None declared

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

Methods Allocation: randomised, alternation

Participants Number randomised: 60

Interventions Needle aspiration versus incision and drainage