Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub5Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 September 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Matthijs C Brouwer

    Department of Neurology, Center for Infection and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Peter McIntyre

    National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Children's Hospital at Westmead and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

  • Kameshwar Prasad

    Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India

  • Diederik van de Beek

    Correspondence to: Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Matthijs Brouwer (MB) was responsible for co‐designing and writing the review, selecting studies, extracting and analysing data.
Peter McIntyre (PM) was responsible for co‐writing the protocol, co‐writing the review and extracting data.
Kameshwar Prasad (KP) was responsible for co‐designing and co‐writing the review.
Diederik van de Beek (DvdB) was responsible for co‐designing and writing the review, selecting studies, extracting and analysing data.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Academic Medical Center, Netherlands.

    AMC Fellowship 2008 (D. van de Beek)

External sources

  • Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Netherlands.

    NWO Veni grant 2012 (916.13.078) to M.C. Brouwer; NWO Veni grant 2006 (916.76.023), NWO Vidi grant (016.116.358) to D. van de Beek

  • European Research Council, Other.

    ERC Starting Grant to D. van de Beek

Declarations of interest

Matthijs C Brouwer: none known.
Peter McIntyre: none known.
Kameshwar Prasad: none known.
Diederik van de Beek is a primary author of one of the included trials (de Gans 2002). Matthijs C Brouwer independently extracted data and assessed quality.

Acknowledgements

Diederik van de Beek is supported by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; NWO Veni grant 2006 (916.76.023); NWO Vidi grant 2010 (016.116.358)), the Academic Medical Center (AMC Fellowship 2008) and European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant (281156)). Matthijs Brouwer is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; NWO Veni grant 2012 (916.13.078)).

We wish to thank the following people for commenting on the 2010 updated review: Amy Zelmer, Andrew Herxheimer, Mark Coulthard, Mark Jones and Inge Axelsson. We also thank the following people for commenting on this 2013 updated review: Marilyn Bamford, Ram Yogev, Elaind Beller and Inge Axelsson.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Sep 12

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Review

Matthijs C Brouwer, Peter McIntyre, Kameshwar Prasad, Diederik van de Beek

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub5

2013 Jun 04

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Review

Matthijs C Brouwer, Peter McIntyre, Kameshwar Prasad, Diederik van de Beek

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub4

2010 Sep 08

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Review

Matthijs C Brouwer, Peter McIntyre, Jan de Gans, Kameshwar Prasad, Diederik van de Beek

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub3

2007 Jan 24

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Review

Diederik van de Beek, Jan de Gans, Peter McIntyre, Kameshwar Prasad

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub2

2003 Jul 21

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

Review

Diederik van de Beek, Jan de Gans, Peter McIntyre, Kameshwar Prasad

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004405

Differences between protocol and review

None.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.1 Mortality.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.2 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.2 Severe hearing loss.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.3 Any hearing loss.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.6 Adverse events.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.6 Adverse events.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 5 Long‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 5 Long‐term neurological sequelae.

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 6 Adverse events.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 6 Adverse events.

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 3 Short‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 3 Short‐term neurological sequelae.

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ non‐Haemophilus influenzae species.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ non‐Haemophilus influenzae species.

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 3 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ Haemophilus influenzae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 3 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ Haemophilus influenzae.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ all patients.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ all patients.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss ‐ all patients.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss ‐ all patients.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ all patients.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ all patients.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 5 Mortality ‐ children.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 5 Mortality ‐ children.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 6 Severe hearing loss ‐ children.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 6 Severe hearing loss ‐ children.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 7 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ children.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 7 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ children.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 8 Severe hearing loss in children due to non‐Haemophilus influenzae species.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 8 Severe hearing loss in children due to non‐Haemophilus influenzae species.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 9 Mortality ‐ adults.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 9 Mortality ‐ adults.

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 10 Any hearing loss adults.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 10 Any hearing loss adults.

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurologic sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurologic sequelae.

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 1 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 1 Mortality.

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 4 Short‐term neurological sequelae.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 1 Severe hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 1 Severe hearing loss.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 3 Short‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 3 Short‐term neurological sequelae.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 4 Long‐term neurological sequelae.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario, Outcome 4 Long‐term neurological sequelae.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings table

Comparison of corticosteroids against placebo in patients with acute bacterial meningitis

Patient or population: acute bacterial meningitis
Setting: hospitals, low‐ and high‐income countries
Intervention: corticosteroids
Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo

Risk with corticosteroids

Mortality

Study population

RR 0.90
(0.80 to 1.01)

4121
(25 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊖⊖

MODERATE 1

199 per 1000

179 per 1000
(159 to 201)

Moderate

188 per 1000

169 per 1000
(150 to 189)

Severe hearing loss

Study population

RR 0.67
(0.51 to 0.88)

2437
(17 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊖

HIGH

93 per 1000

62 per 1000
(47 to 82)

Moderate

40 per 1000

27 per 1000
(20 to 35)

Any hearing loss

Study population

RR 0.74
(0.63 to 0.87)

2785
(20 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊖

HIGH

190 per 1000

141 per 1000
(120 to 166)

Moderate

233 per 1000

173 per 1000
(147 to 203)

Short‐term neurological sequelae

Study population

RR 0.83
(0.69 to 1.00)

1756
(13 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊖

HIGH

216 per 1000

179 per 1000
(149 to 216)

Moderate

222 per 1000

184 per 1000
(153 to 222)

Adverse events ‐ recurrent fever

Study population

RR 1.27
(1.09 to 1.47)

1723
(12 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊖⊖
MODERATE 2

221 per 1000

281 per 1000
(241 to 326)

Moderate

281 per 1000

357 per 1000
(307 to 413)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Variable mortality between studies, consistent with differences across the world in meningitis prognosis.

2Different definitions used for recurrent fever makes this imprecise.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of findings table
Comparison 1. All patients

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

25

4121

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.80, 1.01]

2 Severe hearing loss Show forest plot

17

2437

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.51, 0.88]

3 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

20

2785

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.63, 0.87]

4 Short‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

13

1756

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.69, 1.00]

5 Long‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

13

1706

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.74, 1.10]

6 Adverse events Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Gastrointestinal bleeding

16

2560

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [0.86, 2.45]

6.2 Herpes zoster infection

6

1432

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.86, 1.37]

6.3 Persistent fever

3

316

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.12, 0.70]

6.4 Recurrent fever

12

1723

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [1.09, 1.47]

6.5 Fungal infection

1

301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.56, 5.96]

6.6 Arthritis

6

618

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.27, 1.53]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. All patients
Comparison 2. Children

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

18

2511

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.74, 1.07]

2 Severe hearing loss Show forest plot

14

1524

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.49, 0.91]

3 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

16

1961

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.61, 0.86]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Children
Comparison 3. Adults

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

7

1517

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.53, 1.05]

2 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

4

844

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.56, 0.98]

3 Short‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

4

542

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.51, 1.01]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Adults
Comparison 4. Causative species

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

18

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Haemophilus influenzae

11

825

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.53, 1.09]

1.2 Streptococcus pneumoniae

17

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.72, 0.98]

1.3 Neisseria meningitidis

13

618

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.35, 1.46]

2 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ non‐Haemophilus influenzae species Show forest plot

13

860

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.65, 1.39]

3 Severe hearing loss in children ‐ Haemophilus influenzae Show forest plot

10

756

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.20, 0.59]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Causative species
Comparison 5. Income of countries

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality ‐ all patients Show forest plot

25

4121

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.75, 1.03]

1.1 Low‐income countries

9

1873

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.67, 1.15]

1.2 High‐income countries

16

2248

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.63, 1.05]

2 Severe hearing loss ‐ all patients Show forest plot

17

2445

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.58, 0.94]

2.1 Low‐income countries

5

944

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.72, 1.38]

2.2 High‐income countries

12

1501

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.35, 0.73]

3 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

20

2805

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.69, 0.89]

3.1 Low‐income countries

7

1051

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.76, 1.04]

3.2 High‐income countries

13

1754

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.45, 0.73]

4 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ all patients Show forest plot

14

1814

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.70, 1.02]

4.1 Low‐income countries

5

735

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.31]

4.2 High‐income countries

9

1079

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.48, 0.85]

5 Mortality ‐ children Show forest plot

17

2486

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.77, 1.11]

5.1 Low‐income countries

5

1119

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.12]

5.2 High‐income countries

12

1367

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.61, 1.50]

6 Severe hearing loss ‐ children Show forest plot

14

1531

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.56, 0.98]

6.1 Low‐income countries

3

387

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.69, 1.47]

6.2 High‐income countries

11

1144

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.35, 0.78]

7 Short‐term neurological sequelae ‐ children Show forest plot

10

1271

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.72, 1.13]

7.1 Low‐income countries

3

506

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.81, 1.43]

7.2 High‐income countries

7

765

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.46, 0.97]

8 Severe hearing loss in children due to non‐Haemophilus influenzae species Show forest plot

13

862

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.66, 1.42]

8.1 Low‐income countries

2

297

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [0.72, 2.00]

8.2 High‐income countries

11

565

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.41, 1.31]

9 Mortality ‐ adults Show forest plot

7

1517

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.82, 1.10]

9.1 Low‐income countries

3

636

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.86, 1.20]

9.2 High‐income countries

4

881

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.56, 1.04]

10 Any hearing loss adults Show forest plot

4

844

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.47, 0.98]

10.1 Low‐income countries

2

225

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.49, 1.52]

10.2 High‐income countries

2

619

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.36, 0.92]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Income of countries
Comparison 6. Timing of steroids

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

22

3940

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.73, 1.05]

1.1 Before or with first dose antibiotic

13

3143

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.69, 1.09]

1.2 After first dose antibiotic

9

797

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.55, 1.26]

2 Severe hearing loss Show forest plot

16

2300

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.64, 1.06]

2.1 Before or with first dose antibiotic

10

1866

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.62, 1.07]

2.2 After first dose antibiotic

6

434

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.47, 1.68]

3 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

18

2754

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.68, 0.88]

3.1 Before or with antibiotics

12

2257

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.70, 0.92]

3.2 After first dose of antibiotics

6

497

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.43, 0.89]

4 Short‐term neurologic sequelae Show forest plot

12

1739

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.71, 1.03]

4.1 Before or with first dose antibiotic

6

1282

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.73, 1.13]

4.2 After first dose antibiotic

6

457

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.47, 1.04]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Timing of steroids
Comparison 7. Study quality

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality Show forest plot

25

4121

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.85, 1.06]

1.1 High quality

4

1793

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.88, 1.14]

1.2 Medium quality

14

1477

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.57, 1.17]

1.3 Low quality

7

851

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.60, 1.04]

2 Severe hearing loss Show forest plot

17

2442

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.55, 0.95]

2.1 High quality

3

857

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.69, 1.41]

2.2 Medium quality

10

1051

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.29, 0.75]

2.3 Low quality

4

534

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.20, 1.29]

3 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

20

2806

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.69, 0.90]

3.1 High quality

4

1119

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.73, 1.12]

3.2 Medium quality

12

1150

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.62, 0.87]

3.3 Low quality

4

537

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.38, 1.51]

4 Short‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

13

1756

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.70, 1.03]

4.1 High quality

3

896

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.77, 1.23]

4.2 Medium quality

8

784

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.45, 0.89]

4.3 Low quality

2

76

Risk Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.35, 1.95]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Study quality
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Severe hearing loss Show forest plot

17

2694

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.81, 1.93]

2 Any hearing loss Show forest plot

20

3029

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.71, 1.35]

3 Short‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

13

1850

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.82, 1.18]

4 Long‐term neurological sequelae Show forest plot

13

1758

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.78, 1.78]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analysis ‐ worst‐case scenario