Search

Acute low-tone hearing loss (ALHL) is a common clinical disease and was first proposed by Abe in 1981 as sensorineural hearing loss confined to low frequencies. The best strategy for initiating medication is still unclear, as the superiority of steroids and diuretics is still debated, and combination therapy might yield additional benefits. However, no study regarding combination therapy has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of steroid therapy versus combination therapy of diuretics with steroids by conducting a systematic review with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Studies enrolling patients with a diagnosis of acute low-tone hearing loss were considered eligible. After searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases from inception to 31 December 2021, five studies including 433 patients were enrolled. Overall, the comparison between combination therapy with steroids and diuretics and single-modality treatment with steroids (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.59; p = 0.74; I2 = 34%) and the comparison between combination therapy and treatment with diuretics alone (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.93 to 3.23; p = 0.09; I2 = 5%) showed that combination therapy did not confer significant benefits when compared to single-modality treatments. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) showed conclusive nonsignificant results of the comparison between the combination of steroids and diuretics and a single-modality treatment. In conclusion, we reported that the combination of steroids and diuretics did not yield significant benefits when compared to single-modality treatment with steroids or diuretics. We suggest that treatment should be initiated with steroids or diuretics alone to avoid potential adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional otoscopy has some limitations, including poor visualization and inadequate time for evaluation in suboptimal environments. Smartphone-enabled otoscopy may improve examination quality and serve as a potential diagnostic tool for middle ear diseases using a telemedicine approach. The main objectives are to compare the correctness of smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy and to evaluate the diagnostic confidence of the examiner via meta-analysis. From inception through 20 January 2022, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Studies comparing smartphone-enabled otoscopy with traditional otoscopy regarding the outcome of interest were eligible. The relative risk (RR) for the rate of correctness in diagnosing ear conditions and the standardized mean difference (SMD) in diagnostic confidence were extracted. Sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) were conducted to further examine the pooled results. Study quality was evaluated by using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Consequently, a total of 1840 examinees were divided into the smartphone-enabled otoscopy group and the traditional otoscopy group. Overall, the pooled result showed that smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with higher correctness than traditional otoscopy (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.51; p = 0.01; I2 = 70.0%). Consistently significant associations were also observed in the analysis after excluding the simulation study (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.21; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and normal ear conditions (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40; p = 0.04; I2 = 65.0%). For the confidence of examiners using both otoscopy methods, the pooled result was nonsignificant between the smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy groups (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.40; p = 0.61; I2 = 16.3%). In conclusion, smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with a higher rate of correctness in the detection of middle ear diseases, and in patients with otologic complaints, the use of smartphone-enabled otoscopy may be considered. More large-scale studies should be performed to consolidate the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cleft palate is the most common congenital facial deformity and may result in multiple sequelae and disabilities. One common comorbidity is refractory otitis media with effusion (OME), as patients with cleft palate have impaired eustachian tube function with alteration of the nearby muscular structures. Ventilation tube insertion (VTI) is regarded as an effective mean to address OME in addition to palatal repair surgery. However, controversy regarding the efficacy of VTI and the timing of VTI remains. We aimed to assess the efficacy of VTI with palatal repair for cleft palate on OME development via a meta-analysis with systematic review and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Studies including patients with cleft palate who underwent palatal repair with or without VTI were considered eligible. After searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception through 5 September 2021, 9 studies involving 929 patients were included. Overall, a significantly higher OME-free rate was noted in those who underwent VTI and palatal repair than in those who underwent palatal repair alone (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.37 to 5.42; p = 0.004; I2 = 84%). Subgroup analysis revealed that the OME-free rate remained higher in the concurrent VTI group (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.64 to 6.59; p < 0.001; I2 = 81%). TSA indicated that all the analyses provided conclusive results by meeting the required information size and Z-value. The meta-analysis indicated that VTI is an effective procedure to prevent OME in patients with cleft palate and that VTI is beneficial when performed concurrently with palatal repair surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: Tinnitus is a common disorder characterized by sound in the ear in the absence of external or internal stimuli. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was discovered enhancing tissue repair via increasing the blood microcirculation and cell proliferation in 1960s. In the last two decades, LLLT delivered to the cochlea has frequently been used to reduce the severity of tinnitus. However, whether LLLT effectively attenuates the severity of tinnitus remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy on adult patients with complaints of tinnitus. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Interventions: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Measurements: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score; improvement rates of the visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception through 17 September 2020. Randomized control trials that involved adult patients with complaints of tinnitus, compared LLLT to a placebo and provided sufficient information for meta-analysis were considered eligible. Main Results: Overall, 11 studies involving 670 patients were included. No significant difference in the overall effect according to the THI score (mean difference (MD), −2.85; 95% CI, −8.99 to 3.28; p = 0.362; I2 = 0%) and the rating scale score improvement rate (risk ratio (RR), 1.35; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.27; p = 0.250; I2 = 67%) was demonstrated between patients receiving LLLT and those receiving a placebo. None of the subgroup analyses showed significant differences, regardless of underlying sensorineural hearing loss, the number of irradiation sessions or the wavelength used. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that the value of LLLT in controlling the severity of tinnitus remains unclear, in part due to the relatively small number of patients and underlying heterogeneity. More large-scale investigations of LLLT for tinnitus related to inner ear disease are required to further elucidate the therapeutic effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]