Hearing Loss After COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT. Background: Hearing loss is generally classified as conductive hearing loss (CHL) and sensory-neural hearing loss (SNHL). It has been reported that COVID-19 infection may affect the vestibular-hearing system causing dizziness, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing impairment. However, other studies reported that COVID-19 did not lead to significant hearing impairment. Many studies in the literature have reported hearing loss as a complication of COVID-19 vaccines. However, no systematic review or meta-analysis summarizes the literature on this topic. Method: We performed a comprehensive search for the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane (Medline), Web of Science, and Scopus. All studies published in English till October 2022 were included. These include case reports, case series, prospective and retrospective observational studies, and clinical trials reporting hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccines. Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias for observational studies. NIH tools were used for non-controlled before and after clinical trials and case reports and case series. A third author solved any disagreements. We analyzed the data using SPSS Software version 26. Results: A total of 630 patients were identified, with a mean age of 57.3 that ranged from 15 to 93 years old. The majority of the patients were females, 339 (53.8%). In addition, 328 out of 609 vaccinated patients took the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, while 242 (40%) took the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The mean time from vaccination to hearing impairment was 6.2, ranging from a few hours to one month after the last dose. Most patients reported unilateral sensorineural hearing loss post-vaccination 593 (94.1%). In order to report the fate of cases, a follow-up was initiated with a mean of 15.6 and a range of 2 to 63 days after the initiation of the treatment. A total of 20 patients were fully recovered, and 11 reported no response. Three out of 328 patients who took the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine fully recovered, while five reported partial recovery. According to the chi-squared test, there is a statistically significant difference between patients in terms of fate and the type of COVID-19 vaccination (P-value = 0.001) while reporting no significant difference in dose number prior to the onset of the symptoms (P-value = 0.65) and gender (P-value = 0.4). The ANOVA test was conducted to compare vaccine types and the number of doses in terms of mean time from vaccination to hearing impairment onset. The results found a significant difference between vaccine types (P-value < 0.000) while showing no significance in terms of the number of doses prior to the onset (P-value = 0.6). Conclusion: There is a statistically significant difference between patients in terms of fate and the type of COVID-19 vaccination while reporting no significant difference in dose number prior to the onset of the symptoms and gender. Further, we concluded that there is a significant difference between vaccine types while showing no significance in terms of the number of doses prior to the onset.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».