ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Adjunctive Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or Intratympanic Steroids in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss?
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adjunctive Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or Intratympanic Steroids in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss?The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe pathophysiology of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is still unknown, and therefore treatment strategies are often debated. Traditionally, SSNHL is treated with steroids, either orally (OCS) and/or via intratympanic injection (ITSI). Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) has resurged in popularity as an adjunctive therapy. The present study investigated the additive effect of HBOT to traditional steroid treatment for SSNHL.
methodsRetrospective study comparing treatment effect (pure tone average-PTA; speech recognition threshold-SRT; word recognition score-WRS) between HBOT + ITSI and ITSI treated patients. Sub-analysis of responders and nonresponders, treatment delay, and number of injection/dives.
resultsOne hundred nineteen patients were divided into ITSI (n = 73) and HBOT + ITSI (n = 46) groups. While there was a significant pre-to-posttreatment improvement in PTA, SRT, and WRS (p < 0.001) within each group, there was no difference between groups in pre-to-postimprovement for PTA, SRT, or WRS (p = 0.49, 0.07, or 0.55, respectively). Of responders to treatment, 4.1% did not receive OCS compared to 24.4% of nonresponders (p < 0.001). In HBOT responders, audiogram improvement was demonstrated within 10.9 ± 6.5 (max 23) sessions. 25.8% of HBOT responders showed no response after completing ITSI and then subsequently demonstrated audiometric response after 17.5 ± 4.0 HBOT dives.
conclusionNo additional treatment benefit was found with adjunctive concurrent HBOT. HBOT might be of value to patients refractory to steroid treatment. No beneficial treatment effect in receiving more than 23 HBOT dives was observed. However, evaluating treatment effect in SSNHL loss is always biased by the well-known confounders that are linked to the condition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.