Review Article

Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis That Inflammation-Induced Vasospasm Is Involved in the Pathogenesis of Acquired Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Table 3

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in humans to treat SNHL with steroids.

DesignNumber of participants/number of randomised controlled trialsAge of participantsInterventionOutcomeCritical appraisalReference

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials1394/14UnknownCombined intratympanic and systemic use of steroids as a first-line treatment for sudden SNHLThe 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 trials416/8Mean age 47 to 60 yearsIsolated intratympanic dexamethasone for sudden SNHLPure-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 trials203 /5Unknown overall age distributionIntratympanic steroid therapy as a salvage treatment for sudden SNHL after failure of conventional therapyThe 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, respectivelyThe 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 trials1166/15UnknownTreatment of sudden SNHLThree 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]