Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

A protocol for a network meta-analysis of interventions to treat patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Authors: Nadera Ahmadzai, Shaun Kilty, Dianna Wolfe, Jamie Bonaparte, David Schramm, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Vincent Lin, Wei Cheng, Becky Skidmore, David Moher, Brian Hutton

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, with greater than 20% of Canadian adults having measurable hearing loss in at least one ear. Patients with hearing loss experience impaired quality of life, and emotional and financial consequences that affect themselves and their families. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is a common but difficult to treat form of hearing loss that has a sudden onset of ≤ 72 h associated with various etiologies, with the majority of cases being idiopathic. Some patients may partially or completely recover hearing ability, but for 32 to 65% of patients whose hearing does not recover, feelings of social isolation elevate the risk of anxiety and depression. Hearing loss is also associated with poorer functional status, including difficulty with sound localization and hearing in noise. There exists a wide range of therapeutic options; however, treatment of idiopathic SSNHL is controversial because some patients recover spontaneously. The planned systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) will assess the relative effects of competing treatments for management of idiopathic SSNHL in adults.

Methods

Electronic search strategies were developed by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with no date or language restrictions. Key clinical trial registries will also be searched for in-progress and completed trials. Two reviewers will independently screen the literature using pre-specified eligibility criteria, and assess the quality of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or third party adjudication. Bayesian NMAs will be pursued to compare interventions in terms of their effects on hearing (including audiometric thresholds and speech recognition scores), extent of hearing recovery, quality of life, and incidence of harms (including vestibular dysfunction, incidence of infections, and withdrawals due to adverse events).

Discussion

This systematic review and NMA will offer new and informative evaluations of current therapies for SSNHL. The results will inform clinicians as to the relative benefits of the currently available interventions for managing this difficult condition, provide optimal clinical treatment strategies, establish evidence gaps, and identify promising treatments for evaluation in future trials.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42017073756.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Feder K, Michaud D, Ramage-Morin P, McNamee J, Beauregard Y. Prevalence of hearing loss among Canadians aged 20 to 79: audiometric results from the 2012/2013 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep. 2015;26:18–25.PubMed Feder K, Michaud D, Ramage-Morin P, McNamee J, Beauregard Y. Prevalence of hearing loss among Canadians aged 20 to 79: audiometric results from the 2012/2013 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep. 2015;26:18–25.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Härkönen K, et al. Single-sided deafness: the effect of cochlear implantation on quality of life, quality of hearing, and working performance. ORL J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Its Relat Spec. 2015;77:339–45.CrossRef Härkönen K, et al. Single-sided deafness: the effect of cochlear implantation on quality of life, quality of hearing, and working performance. ORL J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Its Relat Spec. 2015;77:339–45.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Raine C, Atkinson H, Strachan DR, Martin JM. Access to cochlear implants: time to reflect. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(Suppl 1):42–6.CrossRefPubMed Raine C, Atkinson H, Strachan DR, Martin JM. Access to cochlear implants: time to reflect. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17(Suppl 1):42–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Alexander TH, Harris JP. Incidence of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:1586–9.CrossRef Alexander TH, Harris JP. Incidence of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:1586–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Stachler RJ, et al. Clinical practice guideline: sudden hearing loss. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:S1–35.CrossRef Stachler RJ, et al. Clinical practice guideline: sudden hearing loss. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:S1–35.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lawrence R, Thevasagayam R. Controversies in the management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: an evidence-based review. Clin Otolaryngol Off J ENT-UK Off J Neth Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Cervico-Facial Surg. 2015;40:176–82. Lawrence R, Thevasagayam R. Controversies in the management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: an evidence-based review. Clin Otolaryngol Off J ENT-UK Off J Neth Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Cervico-Facial Surg. 2015;40:176–82.
8.
go back to reference Kuhn M, Heman-Ackah SE, Shaikh JA, Roehm PC. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a review of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Trends Amplif. 2011;15:91–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kuhn M, Heman-Ackah SE, Shaikh JA, Roehm PC. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a review of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Trends Amplif. 2011;15:91–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Chung S-D, Hung S-H, Lin H-C, Sheu J-J. Association between sudden sensorineural hearing loss and anxiety disorder: a population-based study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS Affil Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2015;272:2673–8. Chung S-D, Hung S-H, Lin H-C, Sheu J-J. Association between sudden sensorineural hearing loss and anxiety disorder: a population-based study. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS Affil Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2015;272:2673–8.
10.
go back to reference Labus J, Breil J, Stützer H, Michel O. Meta-analysis for the effect of medical therapy vs. placebo on recovery of idiopathic sudden hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:1863–71.CrossRefPubMed Labus J, Breil J, Stützer H, Michel O. Meta-analysis for the effect of medical therapy vs. placebo on recovery of idiopathic sudden hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:1863–71.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Chen J, Liang J, Ou J, Cai W. Mental health in adults with sudden sensorineural hearing loss: an assessment of depressive symptoms and its correlates. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75:72–4.CrossRefPubMed Chen J, Liang J, Ou J, Cai W. Mental health in adults with sudden sensorineural hearing loss: an assessment of depressive symptoms and its correlates. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75:72–4.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sano H, Okamoto M, Ohhashi K, Iwasaki S, Ogawa K. Quality of life reported by patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:36–40.CrossRef Sano H, Okamoto M, Ohhashi K, Iwasaki S, Ogawa K. Quality of life reported by patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol. 2013;34:36–40.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Carlsson P-I, Hall M, Lind K-J, Danermark B. Quality of life, psychosocial consequences, and audiological rehabilitation after sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2011;50:139–44.CrossRefPubMed Carlsson P-I, Hall M, Lind K-J, Danermark B. Quality of life, psychosocial consequences, and audiological rehabilitation after sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2011;50:139–44.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Conlin AE, Parnes LS. Treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: I. A systematic review. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133:573–81.CrossRefPubMed Conlin AE, Parnes LS. Treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: I. A systematic review. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133:573–81.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Schreiber BE, Agrup C, Haskard DO, Luxon LM. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Lancet Lond Engl. 2010;375:1203–11.CrossRef Schreiber BE, Agrup C, Haskard DO, Luxon LM. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Lancet Lond Engl. 2010;375:1203–11.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hutton B, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRefPubMed Hutton B, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Sampson M, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:944–52.CrossRefPubMed Sampson M, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:944–52.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Higgins J, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928. Higgins J, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​d5928.
21.
go back to reference Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A & Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 2:a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (2011). Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A & Ades A. NICE DSU technical support document 2:a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. http://​www.​nicedsu.​org.​uk (2011).
24.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. JR Statist Soc B. 2002;64:583-639. Part 4. Spiegelhalter D, Best N, Carlin B, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. JR Statist Soc B. 2002;64:583-639. Part 4.
25.
go back to reference Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:188–203.CrossRefPubMed Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:188–203.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Johnston BC, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Johnston BC, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins J. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:857–64.CrossRefPubMed Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins J. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:857–64.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.CrossRefPubMed Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
go back to reference Catala-Lopez F, Tobias A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int. 2014;34:1489–96.CrossRefPubMed Catala-Lopez F, Tobias A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int. 2014;34:1489–96.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3 Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3
34.
go back to reference Ioannidis J. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181:488–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ioannidis J. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181:488–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Ioannidis JPA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383:166–75.CrossRef Ioannidis JPA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383:166–75.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A protocol for a network meta-analysis of interventions to treat patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss
Authors
Nadera Ahmadzai
Shaun Kilty
Dianna Wolfe
Jamie Bonaparte
David Schramm
Elizabeth Fitzpatrick
Vincent Lin
Wei Cheng
Becky Skidmore
David Moher
Brian Hutton
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0736-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue