English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

and objective: It is considered that treatment with systemic corticosteroid (SC) orally is preferred in sudden deafness and intratympanic injection of corticosteroid (ITC) can be used as an alternative. PICO question: In an adult with no improvement sudden deafness or partial hearing improvement [patient], does treatment with intratympanic corticoid [intervention] compared with conventional treatment [compared] improve hearing? [result]. Material and Methods: Literature search in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane meta-analysis of published data including descriptors: deafness, hearing loss, steroids, corticoids, intratympanic. Selected studies in adult humans, in Spanish or English that included meta-analysis. Results: Level of evidence: Evidence is high for the use of ITC as rescue therapy in patients undergoing SC without response or partial response. The evidence is moderate for the use of ITC as initial therapy given the poor quality of published studies. What is more, the evidence is high against the use of ITC as initial therapy. Conclusions: Recommendation: The recommendation is strongly in favor of ITC as rescue therapy in patients with little or no response to SC treatment. The recommendation is weak against ITC perform as first-line treatment.

Evidencia y recomendación. ¿Es eficaz el corticoide intratimpánico como tratamiento de la sordera súbita?