-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.
Topics: Child; Chloral Hydrate; Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Pentobarbital
PubMed: 34397100
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011786.pub3 -
International Archives of... Jul 2021Menière disease (MD) is a disorder characterized by episodes of vertigo, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. To assess the effect of... (Review)
Review
Menière disease (MD) is a disorder characterized by episodes of vertigo, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. To assess the effect of ventilation tube insertion (VTI) on vertiginous episodes in patients (≥ 18 years old) with MD. A systematic literature search on randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized trials and other systematic reviews was performed. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Two RCTs and four nonrandomized studies were identified. Data extraction was only possible for one RCT. Results showed that the number of patients with no vertigo attacks significantly increased following active treatment (relative risk 1.52; [95% confidence interval: 1.19-1.94]). The quality of evidence was rated as low. None of the nonrandomized trials included a proper control group, which hindered data extraction and quality assessment. There are currently no RCTs that specifically assess the efficacy of VTI in patients with MD. Current limited data suggest a considerable positive effect on the number of vertiginous episodes in patients with MD. However, due to poor evidence, a fluctuating course and a substantial placebo-effect associated with MD-treatment, no solid conclusion(s) regarding the efficacy of VTI can be made. There is a need for high-quality RCTs.
PubMed: 34377186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714131 -
The Journal of International Advanced... Jul 2021Multi-axial repositioning chairs such as the TRV chair and the Epley Omniax Rotator (EO) are newer alternatives in the treatment of complex and recurrent cases of the...
Multi-axial repositioning chairs such as the TRV chair and the Epley Omniax Rotator (EO) are newer alternatives in the treatment of complex and recurrent cases of the common peripheral vertigo disorder, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). The objective of this systematic review is to collect and synthesize current knowledge on the clinical characteristics of repositioning chairs for treatment of BPPV. A systematic search of the PubMed and EmBase databases was conducted and data regarding clinical characteristics were extracted from both retrospective and prospective studies, and a qualitative synthesis was made. Of 36 unique publications, 9 studies were considered eligible, containing data from 3383 subjects. No randomized controlled trials were found. The included studies were found to have a high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low. The type of referred patients and follow-up periods varied. Recurrence rates varied between 11% and 27.9%. Incidence of rarer types of BPPV was higher in the included studies than previous estimates. The rate of symptom relief was high, and clinical outcomes were similar between posterior canal BPPV (p-BPPV) and non-P BPPV. The included studies show repositioning chairs to be a safe and effective treatment for BPPV, especially for rarer forms and in patients unable to perform manual treatment. However, data from randomized controlled trials are needed to compare with conventional methods to examine their efficacy, to determine indications for treatment, and to decide whether they should be used as first-line treatment.
Topics: Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo; Humans; Patient Positioning; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34309558
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2021.9434 -
Neuro-oncology Practice Aug 2021Large vestibular schwannomas (VS) pose a treatment challenge for both microsurgery (MS) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Technical developments have allowed for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Large vestibular schwannomas (VS) pose a treatment challenge for both microsurgery (MS) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Technical developments have allowed for safer irradiation of large tumors. It remains unclear if SRS can achieve appropriate tumor control and acceptable cranial nerve toxicities. In this study, we assess outcomes of irradiation for large VS.
METHODS
PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched for all the studies assessing SRS outcome in large VS. Primary endpoints included clinical and radiographic tumor control, need for salvage surgery, serviceable hearing, cranial nerve V and VII impairment, presence of hydrocephalus requiring shunting, and presence of vertigo/dizziness.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were identified that met selection criteria for analysis from an initial pool of 1272 reports. They were evaluated according to treatment protocol: 1) single-dose SRS (13 studies, 483 patients), 2) combination of MS and SRS (7 studies, 182 patients), and 3) fractionated SRS (3 studies, 82 patients). Tumor control was achieved in 89%, 94%, and 91% of patients, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) of post- over pretreatment serviceable hearing were 0.42 ( < .01), 0.47 ( = .05), and 0.60 ( = .22); for facial nerve impairment, these ORs were 1.08 ( = .69), 3.45 ( = .28), and 0.87 ( = .71), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The management of large VS remains challenging. All treatment modalities resulted in high tumor control rates and worsening of pretreatment hearing. None, however, caused significant facial nerve impairment, suggesting that management strategies incorporating focal irradiation can be successful.
PubMed: 34277019
DOI: 10.1093/nop/npab011 -
Audiology & Neuro-otology 2022Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is...
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is thought to be specifically effective for Ménière's disease, no evidence for a benefit from the use of betahistine exists, despite its widespread use. Reassessment of the effect of betahistine for Ménière's disease is now warranted.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and additional sources for published and unpublished trials, in which betahistine was compared to placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes involved vertigo, significant adverse effect (upper gastrointestinal discomfort), hearing loss, tinnitus, aural fullness, other adverse effects, and disease-specific health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies: 5 studies used a crossover design and the remaining 5 were parallel-group RCTs. One study with a low risk of bias found no significant difference between the betahistine groups and placebo with respect to vertigo after a long-term follow-up period. No significant difference in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal discomfort was found in 2 studies (low-certainty evidence). No differences in hearing loss, tinnitus, or well-being and disease-specific health-related quality of life were found (low- to very low-certainty of evidence). Data on aural fullness could not be extracted. No significant difference between the betahistine and the placebo groups (low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated in the other adverse effect outcome with respect to dull headache. The pooled risk ratio for other adverse effect in the long term demonstrated a lower risk in favor of placebo over betahistine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies evaluating the effect of betahistine on patients with Ménière's disease are lacking. However, one study with low risk of bias found no evidence of a difference in the effect of betahistine on the primary outcome, vertigo, in patients with Ménière's disease when compared to placebo. The main focus of future research should be on the use of comparable outcome measures by means of patient-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Betahistine; Deafness; Humans; Meniere Disease; Syndrome; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 34233329
DOI: 10.1159/000515821 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2021This review aimed to systematically review what has been published regarding tinnitus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic up to March 2021 by... (Review)
Review
This review aimed to systematically review what has been published regarding tinnitus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic up to March 2021 by performing both narrative and quantitative meta-analyses. Of the 181 records identified, 33 met the inclusion criteria, which generally had a fair risk of overall bias. In the included, 28 studies focused on the impact of the COVID-19 virus on tinnitus and 5 studies focused on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. From the studies identifying the impact of COVID-19 on tinnitus, there were 17 cross-sectional studies ( = 8913) and 11 case series or case report studies ( = 35). There were 2 cross-sectional studies ( = 3232) and 3 pre-post-test design studies ( = 326) focusing on the impact of the pandemic on tinnitus. No consistent patterns were found regarding the presentation of the tinnitus or additional factors that could have tinnitus developing in the disease impact studies. For the pandemic impact studies, the associated stress and anxiety of the pandemic were consistently suggested to contribute to tinnitus experiences. The pooled estimated prevalence of tinnitus post COVID-19 was 8% (CI: 5 to 13%). Medical professionals should be aware that tinnitus might be more problematic following the pandemic or after having COVID-19.
PubMed: 34201831
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132763 -
International Journal of... 2021To describe the audio-vestibular disorders related to the newly SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the possible ototoxicity side-effects related to the use of drugs...
To describe the audio-vestibular disorders related to the newly SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the possible ototoxicity side-effects related to the use of drugs included in the SARS-CoV-2 treatment protocols. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA protocol. The Medline and Embase databases were searched from March 1, 2020 to April 9, 2021. Initially the search yielded 400 manuscripts, which were reduced to 15, upon the application of inclusion criteria. Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is the most frequent audio-vestibular symptom described, occurring alone or in association with tinnitus and vertigo. The etiopathogenesis of the inner ear disorders related to COVID-19 infection is still poorly understood. The number of reports of COVID-19 infections associated to audio-vestibular disorders is increasing; even if the quality of the studies available is often insufficient, audio-vestibular disorders should be considered as possible manifestations to be included among the symptoms of this infection.
Topics: COVID-19; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Ototoxicity; SARS-CoV-2; Vestibular Diseases
PubMed: 34142589
DOI: 10.1177/20587384211027373 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo-controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co-ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bias; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Lacosamide; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 33998660
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008841.pub3 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2021Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.
METHODS
A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.
OBJECTIVE
Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.
RESULTS
A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.
DISCUSSION
Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.
CONCLUSION
Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017058155.
Topics: Adult; Hearing Loss; Humans; Otolaryngology; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tinnitus
PubMed: 33879248
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01659-9 -
The Canadian Journal of Neurological... Mar 2022Extensive studies indicate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) involves human sensory systems. A lack of discussion, however, exists given... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Extensive studies indicate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) involves human sensory systems. A lack of discussion, however, exists given the auditory-vestibular system involvement in CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19). The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the event rate (ER) of hearing loss, tinnitus, and dizziness caused by SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley) and World Health Organization updates were searched using combined keywords: 'COVID-19,' 'SARS-CoV-2,' 'pandemic,' 'auditory dysfunction,' 'hearing loss,' 'tinnitus,' 'vestibular dysfunction,' 'dizziness,' 'vertigo,' and 'otologic symptoms.'
RESULTS
Twelve papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. These papers were single group prospective, cross-sectional, or retrospective studies on otolaryngologic, neurologic, or general clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and had used subjective assessments for data collection (case histories/medical records). The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate that the ER of hearing loss (3.1%, CIs: 0.01-0.09), tinnitus (4.5%, CIs: 0.012-0.153), and dizziness (12.2%, CIs: 0.070-0.204) is statistically significant in patients with COVID-19 (Z ≤ -4.469, p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 can cause hearing loss, tinnitus, and dizziness. These findings, however, should be interpreted with caution given insufficient evidence and heterogeneity among studies. Well-designed studies and follow-up assessments on otologic symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 using standard objective tests are recommended.
Topics: COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dizziness; Hearing Loss; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 33843530
DOI: 10.1017/cjn.2021.63