| Literature DB >> 30232233 |
Shuaifei Ji1, Xuemin Chen2, Heng Shi1, Babo Zhang1, Shun Yao1, Senlin Deng1, Chunlong Tian3, Jun Jiang3, Fei Chen4, Xiaocheng Wang5.
Abstract
Recent years, the discussion about whether platelets participant in the development of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL) continues and many studies on the relationship between them have come to our attention. Some studies believe that platelet parameters have significantly changed in patients with SSHL, while some not, controversially. Therefore, to investigate the association between platelet parameters, including mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW) and platelet count (PLT), and SSHL, expecting to resolve controversy and provide clinical evidence for diagnosis and monitoring of SSHL. Basic methods: Literature was retrieved searching electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus) and searching references of related articles by hand. A total of 18 case-control studies involving 1837/1734 subjects (SSHL/control) were included. Meta-analysis showed there was no difference between the patients who suffered SSHL and healthy controls in MPV level [standard mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 0.16 (-0.07, 0.40), I 2 = 80%, P<0.00001] and PLT [SMD (95% CI) = -0.03(-0.18, 0.12), I 2 = 73%, P<0.00001]. While PDW exhibited significant difference [SMD (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.20, 1.49), I 2 = 93%, P<0.00001]. Subgroup analysis about geographical area suggested PLT have obvious evidence for SSHL in Eastern country [SMD (95% CI) = 0.23 (0.14, 0.33), I 2 = 0%, P=0.81]. Our study did not support a correlation between MPV and SSHL, while PLT may have clinical significance for SSHL in Eastern country. With insufficient data to explore the resource of heterogeneity for PDW, there is no decisive conclusion reached.Entities:
Keywords: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss; mean platelet volume; meta-analysis; platelet count width; platelet distribution
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30232233 PMCID: PMC6239278 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20181183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1Flow diagram for literature selection
Main characteristics of eligible studies
| First author (location, year) | Group | Subjects ( | Age (years) | Male/Female | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durmus (Turkey, 2016) [ | Case | 140 | 47.65 ± 16.14 | 88/52 | 7 |
| Control | 132 | 44.42 ± 16.22 | 32/100 | ||
| Mirvakili (Iran, 2016) [ | Case | 108 | 45.15 ± 14.42 | 61/47 | 8 |
| Control | 108 | 43.15 ± 11.54 | 61/47 | ||
| Ozturk (Turkey, 2014) [ | Case | 39 | 39.1 ± 12.8 | 23/16 | 6 |
| Control | 40 | 38.9 ± 11.2 | 19/21 | ||
| Ulu (Turkey, 2013) [ | Case | 40 | 44.6 ± 16.4 | 20/20 | 8 |
| Control | 40 | 46.8 ± 9.5 | 23/17 | ||
| Sagit (Turkey, 2012) [ | Case | 31 | 37.45 ± 15.70 | 17/14 | 8 |
| Control | 31 | 35.77 ± 14.93 | 16/15 | ||
| Lee (Korea, 2017) [ | Case | 46 | 14.70 ± 2.81 | 26/20 | 8 |
| Control | 46 | 15.20 ± 2.28 | 30/16 | ||
| Kum (Turkey, 2015) [ | Case | 59 | 46.10 ± 11.91 | 38/21 | 8 |
| Control | 59 | 42.84 ± 11.85 | 31/28 | ||
| Sun (China, 2017) [ | Case | 129 | 43.77 ± 14.44 | 68/61 | 8 |
| Control | 31 | 51.06 ± 10.01 | 16/15 | ||
| Ezerarslan (Turkey, 2016) [ | Case | 62 | 51 ± 19 | 26/36 | 7 |
| Control | 49 | 49 ± 16.2 | 16/33 | ||
| Karli (Turkey, 2013) [ | Case | 46 | 45.39 ± 15.70 | 25/21 | 8 |
| Control | 46 | 41.38 ± 16.70 | 24/22 | ||
| Koçak (Turkey, 2016) [ | Case | 93 | 32.3 ± 7.9 | 41/52 | 8 |
| Control | 93 | 31.4 ± 8.1 | 46/47 | ||
| Bláha (Czech Republic, 2014) [ | Case | 54 | 54.2 ± 14.9 | 32/22 | 6 |
| Control | 38 | 32.6 ± 7.4 | 19/19 | ||
| Bulğurcu (Turkey, 2017) [ | Case | 21 | 13.7 ± 3.2 | 13/8 | 6 |
| Control | 24 | 14.8 ± 2.9 | 12/12 | ||
| İkincioğullar (Turkey, 2014) [ | Case | 102 | 48.94 ± 13.86 | 54/48 | 8 |
| Control | 119 | 47 ± 9.63 | 65/54 | ||
| Koçak (Turkey, 2017) [ | Case | 45 | 31.1 ± 7.4 | 25/20 | 8 |
| Control | 47 | 32.4 ± 8.1 | 19/28 | ||
| Seo (Korea, 2014) [ | Case | 348 | 48.19 ± 15.22 | 171/177 | 7 |
| Control | 537 | 48.22 ± 11.6 | 288/249 | ||
| Bao (China, 2015) [ | Case | 424 | 44.22 ± 14.92 | 216/208 | 5 |
| Control | 244 | 42.35 ± 14.71 | 132/112 | ||
| Lu (China, 2008) [ | Case | 50 | 14–69 | 32/18 | 5 |
| Control | 50 | 14–69 | 32/18 |
Range.
Main characteristics of eligible studies
| Study | MPV (fl) | PDW (fl) | PLT (103/μl) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Control | Case | Control | Case | Control | ||||
| Durrmus | 8.98 ± 1.73 | 9.12 ± 0.84 | & | 17.39 ± 6.27 | 10.06 ± 1.99 | # | 228.33 ± 65.21 | 258.59 ± 50.63 | # |
| Mirvakili | 10.02 ± 0.76 | 9.85 ± 0.67 | & | 12.45 ± 1.50 | 12.11 ± 1.24 | & | 228.51 ± 62.45 | 222.86 ± 36.80 | & |
| Ozturk | 8.19 ± 1.07 | 8.01 ± 1.05 | & | 17.7 ± 0.89 | 17.6 ± 1.04 | & | 257 ± 57 | 268 ± 63 | & |
| Ulu | 10.5 ± 0.9 | 9.6 ± 0.5 | # | 13.4 ± 2.1 | 11.1 ± 1.0 | # | 232.9 ± 59.8 | 276.5 ± 62.1 | # |
| Sagit | 9.01 ± 1.24 | 8.21 ± 0.76 | # | 16.29 ± 1.10 | 14.65 ± 2.13 | # | 258.03 ± 58.28 | 249.06 ± 61.96 | & |
| Lee | 7.89 ± 0.92 | 8.27 ± 0.74 | # | 287.52 ± 59.36 | 286.22 ± 55.99 | & | |||
| Kum | 9.83 ± 1.50 | 9.98 ± 0.07 | & | 249.44 ± 48.16 | 244.86 ± 47.25 | & | |||
| Sun | 10.47 ± 1.43 | 9.75 ± 1.66 | # | 217.46 ± 53.67 | 202.48 ± 46. 61 | & | |||
| Ezerarslan | 8.1 ± 1.2 | 8.4 ± 1.2 | & | 234 ± 53.5 | 236 ± 39 | & | |||
| Karli | 8.25 ± 0.86 | 7.98 ± 0.87 | & | 243 ± 81.5 | 275 ± 82.5 | & | |||
| Koçak1 | 8.2 ± 2.2 | 8.7 ± 1.3 | & | ||||||
| Bláha | 10.68 ± 1.1 | 10.47 ± 0.8 | & | ||||||
| Bulğurcu | 247.12 ± 53.23 | 262.11 ± 41.18 | & | ||||||
| İkincioğullar | 263.27 ± 64.11 | 259.32 ± 64.80 | & | ||||||
| Koçak2 | 257 ± 61 | 257 ± 47 | & | ||||||
| Seo | 252.40 ± 60.07 | 238.64 ± 49.98 | # | ||||||
| Bao | 240.47 ± 41.75 | 229.51 ± 48.88 | # | ||||||
| Lu | 210.72 ± 49.40 | 205.52 ± 47.78 | & | ||||||
Koçak1, (Turkey, 2016); Koçak2, (Turkey, 2017). #P<0.05, &P≥0.05.
Figure 2Difference of MPV between SSHL patients and controls
Figure 3Begg’s test (A) and Egger’s test (B) for publication bias assessment of MPV.
Summary effects of subgroup analysis results
| Subgroup | SMD (95% CI) | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 837/713 | 0.16 (–0.07, 0.40) | =0.18 | <0.00001 | 80 | |
| Geographical area | |||||
| Eastern country | 165/77 | 0.05 (–0.93,1.02) | =0.93 | =0.0007 | 91 |
| Western country | 672/636 | 0.18 (–0.07, 0.43) | =0.15 | <0.00001 | 80 |
| Sample size of patients | |||||
| Size ≥100 | 367/271 | 0.20 (–0.15, 0.54) | =0.26 | =0.02 | 76 |
| Size <100 | 470/442 | 0.15 (–0.17,0.48) | =0.35 | <0.00001 | 83 |
| EDTA | |||||
| Mentioned | 358/351 | 0.42 (–0.00, 0.85) | =0.05 | <0.0001 | 86 |
| No-mentioned | 479/362 | –0.02 (–0.28, 0.24) | =0.90 | =0.003 | 70 |
| NOS | |||||
| ≥7 | 744/635 | 0.16 (–0.12, 0.44) | =0.25 | <0.0001 | 84 |
| <7 | 93/78 | 0.19 (–0.11, 0.49) | =0.22 | =0.89 | 0 |
| 1690/1603 | –0.03 (–0.18, 0.12) | =0.72 | <0.00001 | 73 | |
| Geographical area | |||||
| Eastern country | 997/908 | 0.23 (0.14, 0.33) | <0.00001 | =0.81 | 0 |
| Western country | 693/695 | –0.15 (–0.33,0.03) | =0.11 | =0.003 | 62 |
| Sample size of patients | |||||
| Size ≥100 | 1251/1171 | 0.07(–0.16, 0.30) | =0.54 | <0.00001 | 85 |
| Size <100 | 439/432 | –0.11(–0.27, 0.06) | =0.20 | =0.15 | 32 |
| EDTA | |||||
| Mentioned | 853/669 | –0.12(–0.40, 0.15) | =0.38 | <0.00001 | 82 |
| No-mentioned | 837/934 | 0.08(–0.06, 0.22) | =0.27 | =0.12 | 38 |
| NOS | |||||
| ≥7 | 1177/1269 | –0.06(–0.24, 0.12) | =0.52 | <0.00001 | 75 |
| <7 | 513/334 | 0.13(–0.10, 0.36) | =0.28 | =0.19 | 41 |
N#, case/control.
Figure 4Differences of PDW between SSHL patients and controls
Figure 5Begg’s test (A) and Egger’s test (B) for publication bias assessment of PDW.
Figure 6Differences of PLT between SSHL patients and controls
Figure 7Begg’s test (A) and Egger’s test (B) for publication bias assessment of PLT.
Figure 8Filled funnel plot for publication bias assessment of PLT
NOS scores of included studies.