-
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Dizziness in children, which could not be diagnosed at an early stage in the past, is becoming increasingly clear to a large extent. However, the recognition of the...
BACKGROUND
Dizziness in children, which could not be diagnosed at an early stage in the past, is becoming increasingly clear to a large extent. However, the recognition of the diagnosis and management remains discrepant and controversial due to their complicated and varied etiology. Central and peripheral vestibular disorders, psychogenic and systemic diseases, and genetic pathogeny constitute childhood etiological entities. Further understanding of the etiology and the prevalence of vertigo disorders is of crucial importance and benefit in the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by systematically searching Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNIK, the Chinese Wan-Fang database, CBM, the Chinese VIP database, and the Web of Science for literature on childhood vertigo disorders published up to May 2022. The literature was evaluated under strict screening and diagnostic criteria. Their quality was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality (AHRQ) standards. The test for homogeneity was conducted to determine the fixed effects model or random-effect model employed.
RESULTS
Twenty-three retrospective cross-sectional studies involving 7,647 children with vertigo disorders were finally included, with an AHRQ score >4 (high or moderate quality). Our results demonstrated that peripheral vertigo (52.20%, 95% CI: 42.9-61.4%) was more common in children than central vertigo (28.7%, 95% CI: 20.8-37.4%), psychogenic vertigo (7.0%, 95% CI: 4.8-10.0%), and other systemic vertigo (4.7%, 95% CI: 2.6-8.2%). The five most common etiological diagnoses associated with peripheral vertigo included benign paroxysmal vertigo of childhood (BPVC) (19.50%, 95% CI: 13.5-28.3%), sinusitis-related diseases (10.7%, 95% CI: -11.2-32.6%), vestibular or semicircular canal dysfunction (9.20%, 95% CI: 5.7-15.0%), benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV)(7.20%, 95% CI: 3.9-11.5%), and orthostatic dysregulation (6.8%, 95% CI: 3.4-13.0%). Vestibular migraine (20.3%, 95% CI: 15.4-25.2%) was the most seen etiological diagnosis associated with central vertigo in children. In addition, we found the sex-based difference influenced the outcome of psychogenic vertigo and vestibular migraine, while there was no significant difference in other categories of the etiology. For the management of vertigo, symptomatical management is the first choice for most types of vertigo disorder in pediatrics.
CONCLUSION
Complex etiology and non-specific clinical manifestations of vertigo in pediatrics are challenging for their diagnoses. Reliable diagnosis and effective management depend on the close cooperation of multiple disciplines, combined with comprehensive consideration of the alternative characteristics of vertigo in children with growth and development.
PubMed: 36937528
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1125488 -
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy... Jul 2023Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is one of the most common vestibular disorders, and is treated effectively with particle repositioning maneuvers (PRM). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is one of the most common vestibular disorders, and is treated effectively with particle repositioning maneuvers (PRM). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of BPPV and treatment effects of PRM on gait, falls, and fear of falling.
METHODS
Three databases and the reference lists of included articles were systematically searched for studies comparing gait and/or falls between (1) people with BPPV (pwBPPV) and controls and (2) pre- and posttreatment with PRM. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess risk of bias.
RESULTS
Twenty of the 25 included studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Quality assessment resulted in 2 studies with high risk of bias, 13 with moderate risk, and 10 with low risk. PwBPPV walked slower and demonstrated more sway during tandem walking compared with controls. PwBPPV also walked slower during head rotations. After PRM, gait velocity during level walking increased significantly, and gait became safer according to gait assessment scales. Impairments during tandem walking and walking with head rotations did not improve. The number of fallers was significantly higher for pwBPPV than for controls. After treatment, the number of falls, number of pwBPPV who fell, and fear of falling decreased.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
BPPV increases the odds of falls and negatively impacts spatiotemporal parameters of gait. PRM improves falls, fear of falling, and gait during level walking. Additional rehabilitation might be necessary to improve gait while walking with head movements or tandem walking.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Supplemental Digital Content Video, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A421 ).
Topics: Humans; Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Fear; Gait; Walking
PubMed: 36897200
DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000438 -
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience :... Apr 2023Vestibular migraine is a common vertigo disease, and studies confirm that Traditional Chinese medical has unique advantages in treating vestibular migraine. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Vestibular migraine is a common vertigo disease, and studies confirm that Traditional Chinese medical has unique advantages in treating vestibular migraine. However, there is no unified clinical treatment method and lacks objective outcome indicators. This study aims to provide evidence-based medical evidence by systematically evaluating the clinical efficacy of oral TCM in treating vestibular migraine.
METHODS
Search journals related with clinical randomized controlled trials of oral traditional Chinese medicine for vestibular migraine in databases includes China Academic Journals full-text database (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal Database(VIP), Wangfang Medicine Online(WANFANG), PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and OVID databases from their inceptions until September 2022. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, then conduct the Meta analysis by using RevMan5.3.
RESULTS
There were 179 papers left after selection. Moreover, according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, 158 studies were filtered and the remaining 21 articles would be considered in this paper, which include 1650 patients in total and 828 of them were in the therapy group and 822 of them were in the control group.Furthermore,the therapy group outperformed the control group in terms of the total efficiency rate and TCM syndrome score, and the difference is statistically significant(P < 0.01). The number of vertigo attacks and the duration of each vertigo decreased compared to the control group, which difference is also statistically significant (P < 0.01). The funnel chart of the total efficiency rate was approximately symmetric and publication bias was low.
CONCLUSION
The oral traditional Chinese medicine is an effective way for vestibular migraine, which would help with the clinical symptoms, reduce the TCM syndrome score, decrease the number of vertigo attacks and the duration of each vertigo, and improve life quality of patients.
Topics: Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Treatment Outcome; Migraine Disorders; China
PubMed: 36863125
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2023.02.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Lifestyle or dietary modifications (including... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Lifestyle or dietary modifications (including reducing the amount of salt or caffeine in the diet) are sometimes suggested to be of benefit for this condition. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these interventions may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of lifestyle and dietary interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with Ménière's disease comparing any lifestyle or dietary intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, one related to diet, and the other related to fluid intake and sleep. In a Swedish study, 51 participants were randomised to receive 'specially processed cereals' or standard cereals. The specially processed cereals are thought to stimulate the production of anti-secretory factor - a protein that reduces inflammation and fluid secretion. Participants received the cereals for three months. The only outcome reported by this study was disease-specific health-related quality of life. The second study was conducted in Japan. The participants (223) were randomised to receive abundant water intake (35 mL/kg/day), or to sleep in darkness (in an unlit room for six to seven hours per night), or to receive no intervention. The duration of follow-up was two years. The outcomes assessed were 'improvement in vertigo' and hearing. As these studies considered different interventions we were unable to carry out any meta-analysis, and for almost all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for lifestyle or dietary interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. We did not identify any placebo-controlled RCTs for interventions that are frequently recommended for those with Ménière's disease, such as salt restriction or caffeine restriction. We identified only two RCTs that compared a lifestyle or dietary intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Caffeine; Life Style; Meniere Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 36848645
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015244.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition (through the tympanic membrane). The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects (including tympanic membrane perforation). We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 952 participants. All studies used the corticosteroid dexamethasone, with doses ranging from approximately 2 mg to 12 mg. Improvement in vertigo Intratympanic corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the number of people who report an improvement in their vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 96.8%, placebo 96.6%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.10; 2 studies; 60 participants; low-certainty evidence) or at more than 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 100%, placebo 96.3%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23; 2 studies; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we note the large improvement in the placebo group for these trials, which causes challenges in interpreting these results. Change in vertigo Assessed with a global score One study (44 participants) assessed the change in vertigo at 3 to < 6 months using a global score, which considered the frequency, duration and severity of vertigo. This is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Assessed by frequency of vertigo Three studies (304 participants) assessed the change in frequency of vertigo episodes at 3 to < 6 months. Intratympanic corticosteroids may slightly reduce the frequency of vertigo episodes. The proportion of days affected by vertigo was 0.05 lower (absolute difference -5%) in those receiving intratympanic corticosteroids (95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 3 studies; 472 participants; low-certainty evidence). This is equivalent to a difference of approximately 1.5 days fewer per month affected by vertigo in the corticosteroid group (with the control group having vertigo on approximately 2.5 to 3.5 days per month at the end of follow-up, and those receiving corticosteroids having vertigo on approximately 1 to 2 days per month). However, this result should be interpreted with caution - we are aware of unpublished data at this time point in which corticosteroids failed to show a benefit over placebo. One study also assessed the change in frequency of vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months follow-up. However, this is a single, small study and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Serious adverse events Four studies reported this outcome. There may be little or no effect on the occurrence of serious adverse events with intratympanic corticosteroids, but the evidence is very uncertain (intratympanic corticosteroids 3.0%, placebo 4.4%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.85; 4 studies; 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for intratympanic corticosteroids in the treatment of Ménière's disease is uncertain. There are relatively few published RCTs, which all consider the same type of corticosteroid (dexamethasone). We also have concerns about publication bias in this area, with the identification of two large RCTs that remain unpublished. The evidence comparing intratympanic corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment is therefore all low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area, and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits. Finally, we would also highlight the responsibility that trialists have to ensure results are available, regardless of the outcome of their study.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dexamethasone; Meniere Disease; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 36847608
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015245.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Aminoglycosides are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition. The aim of this treatment is to partially or completely destroy the balance function of the affected ear. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic aminoglycosides versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic aminoglycosides with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with a total of 137 participants. All studies compared the use of gentamicin to either placebo or no treatment. Due to the very small numbers of participants in these trials, and concerns over the conduct and reporting of some studies, we considered all the evidence in this review to be very low-certainty. Improvement in vertigo This outcome was assessed by only two studies, and they used different time periods for reporting. Improvement in vertigo was reported by more participants who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (16/16 participants who received gentamicin, compared to 0/16 participants with no intervention; risk ratio (RR) 33.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.15 to 507; 1 study; 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and at > 12 months follow-up (12/12 participants receiving gentamicin, compared to 6/10 participants receiving placebo; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.69; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis for this outcome, the certainty of the evidence was very low and we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Change in vertigo Again, two studies assessed this outcome, but used different methods of measuring vertigo and assessed the outcome at different time points. We were therefore unable to carry out any meta-analysis or draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. Global scores of vertigo were lower for those who received gentamicin at both 6 to ≤ 12 months (mean difference (MD) -1 point, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.32; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence; four-point scale; minimally clinically important difference presumed to be one point) and at > 12 months (MD -1.8 points, 95% CI -2.49 to -1.11; 1 study; 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Vertigo frequency was also lower at > 12 months for those who received gentamicin (0 attacks per year in participants receiving gentamicin compared to 11 attacks per year for those receiving placebo; 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the total number of participants who experienced a serious adverse event. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or because they were not assessed or reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in the treatment of Ménière's disease is very uncertain. This is primarily due to the fact that there are few published RCTs in this area, and all the studies we identified enrolled a very small number of participants. As the studies assessed different outcomes, using different methods, and reported at different time points, we were not able to pool the results to obtain more reliable estimates of the efficacy of this treatment. More people may report an improvement in vertigo following gentamicin treatment, and scores of vertigo symptoms may also improve. However, the limitations of the evidence mean that we cannot be sure of these effects. Although there is the potential for intratympanic gentamicin to cause harm (for example, hearing loss) we did not find any information about the risks of treatment in this review. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analysis of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gentamicins; Meniere Disease; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 36847592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015246.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used in the management of this condition, including betahistine, diuretics, antiviral medications and corticosteroids. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which these treatments may work. The efficacy of these different interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing betahistine, diuretics, antihistamines, antivirals or systemic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with a total of 848 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: betahistine, diuretics, antivirals and corticosteroids. We did not identify any evidence on antihistamines. Betahistine Seven RCTs (548 participants) addressed this comparison. However, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes as not all outcomes were considered by every study, and studies that did report the same outcome used different time points for follow-up, or assessed the outcome using different methods. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Some data were available for each of our primary outcomes, but the evidence was low- or very low-certainty throughout. One study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' at 6 to ≤ 12 months, and another study reported this outcome at > 12 months. Four studies reported on the change in vertigo, but again all used different methods of assessment (vertigo frequency, or a global score of vertigo severity) or different time points. A single study reported on serious adverse events. Diuretics Two RCTs addressed this comparison. One considered the use of isosorbide (220 participants), and the other used a combination of amiloride hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide (80 participants). Again, we were unable to conduct any meta-analyses for our primary outcomes, as only one study reported on the outcome 'improvement in vertigo' (at 6 to ≤ 12 months), one study reported on change in vertigo (at 3 to < 6 months) and neither study assessed serious adverse events. Therefore, we were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. The evidence was all very low-certainty. Other pharmacological interventions We also identified one study that assessed antivirals (24 participants), and one study that assessed corticosteroids (16 participants). The evidence for these interventions was all very low-certainty. Again, serious adverse events were not considered by either study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for systemic pharmacological interventions for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare these interventions to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Meniere Disease; Tinnitus; Betahistine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Vertigo; Diuretics; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 36827524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015171.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. First-line treatments often involve dietary or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. First-line treatments often involve dietary or lifestyle changes, medication or local (intratympanic) treatments. However, surgery may also be considered for people with persistent or severe symptoms. The efficacy of different surgical interventions at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical interventions versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable Ménière's disease comparing ventilation tubes, endolymphatic sac surgery, semi-circular canal plugging/obliteration, vestibular nerve section or labyrinthectomy with either placebo (sham surgery) or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with a total of 178 participants. One evaluated ventilation tubes compared to no treatment, the other evaluated endolymphatic sac decompression compared to sham surgery. Ventilation tubes We included a single RCT of 148 participants with definite Ménière's disease. It was conducted in a single centre in Japan from 2010 to 2013. Participants either received ventilation tubes with standard medical treatment, or standard medical treatment alone, and were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the number of participants in whom vertigo resolved, and the effect of the intervention on hearing. Our other primary and secondary outcomes were not reported in this study. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Endolymphatic sac decompression We also included one RCT of 30 participants that compared endolymphatic sac decompression with sham surgery. This was a single-centre study conducted in Denmark during the 1980s. Follow-up was predominantly conducted at one year, but additional follow-up continued for up to nine years in some participants. Some data were reported on hearing and vertigo (both improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo), but our other outcomes of interest were not reported. Again, this is a single, very small study and we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. We are therefore unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to draw clear conclusions about the efficacy of these surgical interventions for Ménière's disease. We identified evidence for only two of our five proposed comparisons, and we assessed all the evidence as low- or very low-certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Many of the outcomes that we planned to assess were not reported by the studies, such as the impact on quality of life, and adverse effects of the interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Meniere Disease; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 36825750
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015249.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. It is often treated with medication, but... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. It is often treated with medication, but different interventions are sometimes used. Positive pressure therapy is a treatment that creates small pressure pulses, generated by a pump that is attached to tubing placed in the ear canal. It is typically used for a few minutes, several times per day. The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention at preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of positive pressure therapy versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing positive pressure therapy with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 238 participants, all of which compared positive pressure using the Meniett device to sham treatment. The duration of follow-up was a maximum of four months. Improvement in vertigo A single study assessed whether participants had an improvement in the frequency of their vertigo whilst using positive pressure therapy, therefore we are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the results. Change in vertigo Only one study reported on the change in vertigo symptoms using a global score (at 3 to < 6 months), so we are again unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. All three studies reported on the change in the frequency of vertigo. The summary effect showed that people receiving positive pressure therapy had, on average, 0.84 fewer days per month affected by vertigo (95% confidence interval from 2.12 days fewer to 0.45 days more; 3 studies; 202 participants). However, the evidence on the change in vertigo frequency was of very low certainty, therefore there is great uncertainty in this estimate. Serious adverse events None of the included studies provided information on the number of people who experienced serious adverse events. It is unclear whether this is because no adverse events occurred, or whether they were not assessed and reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for positive pressure therapy for Ménière's disease is very uncertain. There are few RCTs that compare this intervention to placebo or no treatment, and the evidence that is currently available from these studies is of low or very low certainty. This means that we have very low confidence that the effects reported are accurate estimates of the true effect of these interventions. Consensus on the appropriate outcomes to measure in studies of Ménière's disease is needed (i.e. a core outcome set) in order to guide future studies in this area and enable meta-analyses of the results. This must include appropriate consideration of the potential harms of treatment, as well as the benefits.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Meniere Disease; Otitis Media, Suppurative; Physical Therapy Modalities; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 36815713
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015248.pub2 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Dec 2022Endoscopes have revolutionized the field of otology for the past two decades due to its minimally invasive technique and improved visualization. The advantage of...
Endoscopes have revolutionized the field of otology for the past two decades due to its minimally invasive technique and improved visualization. The advantage of endoscope during surgery for middle ear cholesteatoma both for diagnosing and aiding in removal of residual disease from the hidden areas and the resulting lower recurrence rates have been proven in the past by many authors. But the feasibility of totally endoscopic ear surgery and its surgical and patient related outcomes are yet to be explored in detail. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the surgical and patient related outcomes between totally endoscopic and microscopic technique in cases of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma. This meta-analysis has been conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. Search engines used to identify the eligible articles were Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library databases. The studies that compared the outcomes of microscopic and endoscopic techniques in case of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma and with more than 10 patients were included. Outcomes like recurrence, residual disease, graft uptake rate, audiological outcome, conversion rate, pain score, surgery duration, complications and quality of life outcomes were compared.The quality of the included studies was assessed by Methodological Index for Non-randomized studies criteria in case of non-randomized studies and by means of Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in case of randomized controlled studies. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates. The ODDS ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated. The heterogeneity among the studies was represented by the Q statistic and Higgins I statistic. The test for overall effect was calculated by Z test and a p value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Out of 11 included studies, 4 were prospectively designed and 7 were retrospective studies. The overall effect showed recurrence rate (Z:2.69, P:0.007) was lower among endoscopic technique. Post-operative pain was less among the endoscopic technique and there was no difference between the groups with respect to surgical duration. Although endoscopic technique showed lower residual rate and post-operative vertigo with better graft success rate among the individual studies, the overall analysis showed that the difference was not statistically significant. Endoscope has been an invaluable tool in the cholesteatoma surgery over the past 20 years due to its excellent optics and minimally invasive technique. Evaluation of the present data available in the literature reveals that both the techniques have similar outcomes except for a definite advantage of endoscopic technique in reducing the recurrence and post-operative discomfort.
PubMed: 36742509
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-021-02869-2