SynthesisScientific reports2024
Increased risk of hearing loss associated with macrolide use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update of the EuroGuiDerm evidence-based guideline for the treatment of acne-Short version.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Guideline
- Gut Resistome and Hearing Loss in Young Adults: A Preliminary Study on the Interplay Between Microbial Resistance and Auditory Health.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss, tinnitus, and ototoxicity following macrolide use. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception to May 2023. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text keywords were utilized, without any language restrictions. In addition to the electronic databases, two authors manually and independently searched for relevant studies in the US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Studies that involved (1) patients who had hearing loss, tinnitus, or ototoxicity after macrolide use, (2) intervention of use of macrolides such as azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, fidaxomicin, roxithromycin, spiramycin, and/or telithromycin, (3) comparisons with specified placebos or other antibiotics, (4) outcomes measured as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference for ototoxicity symptoms using randomized control trial (RCT)s and observational studies (case-control, cross-section, and cohort studies) were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two extractors, and a crosscheck was performed to identify any errors. ORs along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines for RCTs and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for observational studies were followed. We assessed the hearing loss risk after macrolide use versus controls (placebos and other antibiotics). Based on data from 13 studies including 1,142,021 patients (n = 267,546 for macrolide and n = 875,089 for controls), the overall pooled OR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.47). In subgroup analysis by study design, the ORs were 1.37 (95% CI 1.08-1.73) for RCTs and 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.43) for case-control studies, indicating that RCT and case-control study designs showed a statistically significant higher risk of hearing loss. The group with underlying diseases such as multiple infectious etiologies (OR, 1.16 [95% CI 0.96-1.41]) had a statistically significant lower risk than the group without (OR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.38-1.70] P = .013). The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of hearing loss and that healthcare professionals should carefully consider this factor while prescribing macrolides.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.