|
Design | Number of participants/number of randomised controlled trials | Age of participants | Intervention | Outcome | Critical appraisal | Reference |
|
Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | 1394/14 | Unknown | Combined intratympanic and systemic use of steroids as a first-line treatment for sudden SNHL | The proportion of patients with hearing improvement as the outcome measure was observed in 13 studies, which resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of 2.50 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.95–2.1) | The differences in treatment regimes or unclear treatment invalidate the pooling of results | [83] |
|
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | 416/8 | Mean age 47 to 60 years | Isolated intratympanic dexamethasone for sudden SNHL | Pure-tone audiogram improvement criterion did not reach statistical significance (OR 5 0.39, CrI 5 0.11–1.27) | Large heterogeneity was noted among these studies | [84] |
|
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials | 203 /5 | Unknown overall age distribution | Intratympanic steroid therapy as a salvage treatment for sudden SNHL after failure of conventional therapy | The meta-analysis data were derived from 5RCTs of 102 patients in the ITS group and 101 control subjects; the mean difference and 95% CI of the PTA improvement (indB) were 7.43 and 4.25–10.60, respectively | The authors suspected that the small number of trials (5) available for their meta-analysis was due to publication bias with studies reporting nonsignificant results under represented | [85] |
|
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials | 1166/15 | Unknown | Treatment of sudden SNHL | Three articles (181 subjects), steroid versus placebo analysis: OR = 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83–2.77); six articles (702 subjects) in systemic versus intratympanic steroids analysis (OR 1.14 (95% CI: 0.82–1.59)); six articles (283 subjects): salvage treatment analysis (OR: 6.04 (95% CI: 3.26–11.2)) | Numbers are small in the subgroup analyses shown; a clinically significant effect may have been missed | [86] |
|