https://links.lww.com/MAO/B184

(1)

Supplemental Table 1: MINORS Score

Author Study

Year Clearly

Stated Aim

Inclusion of consecutive patients

Prospective Collection

of Data

Endpoints appropriate

to the aim of the study

Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint

Follow-up period appropriate

to the aim of the study

Loss to follow

up less than 5%

Prospective calculation of the study

size

An adequate

control group

Contemporary Groups

Baseline Equivalence

of Groups

Adequate Statistical Analysis

Total Score Wang,

Han & Yu 2020 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 10

Kavanagh

et al. 2018 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 NA NA NA NA 9

Seccia et

al. 2016 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 12

Nakamaru

et al. 2016 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 12

Saka et al. 2009 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 12

Ishiyama

& Canalis 2001 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 10

Nagao et

al. 2011 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 10

Ovadia et

al. 2009 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 10

Lee et al. 2015 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 8

Ueki et al. 2011 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 8

Del Pero, Moffat and Sudhoff

2008 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 8

Bacciu et

al. 2006 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 NA NA NA NA 12

Diri et al. 2003 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 8

Petersen

et al. 2015 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 10

Fukuda et

al. 2019 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 NA NA NA NA 8

Supplementary Table 2. Modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for noncomparative studies.

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Methological

(2)

Quality

Author Year Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Wang, Han & Yu

202

0 x x x x x Moderate

Kavanagh et al.

201

8 x x x x x High

Seccia et al.

201

6 x x x x x High

Nakamaru et al.

201

Saka et al.

200

Ishiyama & Canalis

200

Nagao et al.

201

Ovadia et al.

200

Lee et al.

201

Ueki et al.

201

Del Pero, Moffat and Sudhoff 200

Bacciu et al.

200

6 x x x x x High

Diri et al.

200

Petersen et al.

201

5 x x x x x High

Fukuda et al.

201

9 x x x x x High

Total 5 10 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0

Appraisal Questions: 1. Did the patient(s) represent the whole case(s) of the medical center? 2. Was the diagnosis correctly made? 3. Were other important diagnoses excluded? 4. Were all important data cited in the report? 5. Was the outcome correctly ascertained?

(3)

Supplemental Table 3: Diagnostic Criteria for EGPA in Patients with Concurrent Otologic Manifestations.

Study

T o ta l # P ati e nts A sth m a E o sin o p h ilia > 10 % N e u ro p a th y E xtr a va sc u la r eo sin o p h ils P u lm on a ry in filt ra te s P a ra n a sa l sin u s a bn o rm a liti e s A N C A (+ )

Wang, Han & Yu 2020 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

Kavanagh et al. 2018 16 9 9 - 7 - 18 -

Seccia et al. 2016 34 18 - 5 4 - 27 14

Nakamaru et al. 2016 21 11 11 8.9 - 3.1 16.8 -

Saka et al. 2009 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1

Ishiyama & Canalis 2001 5 5 3 1 - 3 6 -

Nagao et al. 2011 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 -

Ovadia et al. 2009 1 1 1 1 1 - 2 -

Lee et al. 2015 1 - 1 1 - - - 1

Ueki et al. 2011 1 1 - - - 1 - -

Del Pero et al. 2008 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 -

Bacciu et al. 2006 28 4 4 2 - 1 5 3

Diri et al. 2003 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1

Petersen et al. 2015 95 - - - - - - -

Fukuda et al. 2019 12 12 12 - - - 14 6

Combined cases 219 66 44 23.9 17 10.1 92.8 26

Percentages (%) 53 35 19 14 8 75 32

(4)