. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 28.

Published in final edited form as: Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019 Dec 19;4(2):141–150. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30336-0

Table 2:

Data synthesis of trials for cisplatin-induced ototoxicity prevention

	Studies (n)	Patients (n)	Effect size^*	95% CI	I² (%)	p value
Amifostine vs no treatment
Any ototoxicity	5	465	RR 0·96	0·71 to 1·29	49%	0·78
Severe ototoxicity	4	223	RR 0·85	0·34 to 2·12	0%	0·72
Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate vs no treatment
Severe ototoxicity	2	255	RR 0·73	0·08 to 6·44	56%	0·77
Sodium thiosulfate vs no treatment
Any ototoxicity	2	205	RR 0·51	0·37 to 0·71	0%	<0·0001
Intratympanic acetylcysteine vs no treatment
Threshold at 4 kHz	2	62	MD −2·7	−14·9 to 9·5	0%	0·66
Threshold at 8 kHz	2	62	MD −1·6	−14·8 to 11·6	0%	0·81
Intratympanic dexamethasone vs no treatment
Threshold at 4 kHz	2	92	MD −0·7	−5·8 to 4·5	0%	0·80
Threshold at 8 kHz	2	92	MD −8·7	−18·1 to 0·7	34%	0·07
Continuous cisplatin infusion vs bolus cisplatin infusion
Any ototoxicity	2	78	RR 1·60	0·62 to 4·13	0%	0·33

RR=risk ratio. MD=mean difference.

RR less than 1 and MD less than 0 favour intervention.