This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (12 SEP 2015)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis

  1. Matthijs C Brouwer1,
  2. Peter McIntyre2,
  3. Kameshwar Prasad3,
  4. Diederik van de Beek1,*

Editorial Group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

Published Online: 4 JUN 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 18 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub4


How to Cite

Brouwer MC, McIntyre P, Prasad K, van de Beek D. Corticosteroids for acute bacterial meningitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004405. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004405.pub4.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Center for Infection and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Amsterdam, Netherlands

  2. 2

    Children's Hospital at Westmead and University of Sydney, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance of Vaccine Preventable Diseases, Sydney, NSW, Australia

  3. 3

    All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Department of Neurology, New Delhi, India

*Diederik van de Beek, Department of Neurology, Center for Infection and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Academic Medical Center University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DE, Netherlands. D.vandeBeek@amc.uva.nl.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 4 JUN 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (12 SEP 2015)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.1 Mortality.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.3 Any hearing loss.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.2 Severe hearing loss.
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 All patients, outcome: 1.6 Adverse events.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 4 Short-term neurological sequelae.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 5 Long-term neurological sequelae.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 All patients, Outcome 6 Adverse events.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Children, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Adults, Outcome 3 Short-term neurological sequelae.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss in children - non-Haemophilus influenzae species.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Causative species, Outcome 3 Severe hearing loss in children - Haemophilus influenzae.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 1 Mortality - all patients.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss - all patients.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 4 Short-term neurological sequelae - all patients.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 5 Mortality - children.
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 6 Severe hearing loss - children.
[Analysis 5.7]
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 7 Short-term neurological sequelae - children.
[Analysis 5.8]
Analysis 5.8. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 8 Severe hearing loss in children due to non-Haemophilus influenzae species.
[Analysis 5.9]
Analysis 5.9. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 9 Mortality - adults.
[Analysis 5.10]
Analysis 5.10. Comparison 5 Income of countries, Outcome 10 Any hearing loss adults.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 Timing of steroids, Outcome 4 Short-term neurologic sequelae.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 1 Mortality.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 2 Severe hearing loss.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 3 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Study quality, Outcome 4 Short-term neurological sequelae.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis - worst-case scenario, Outcome 1 Severe hearing loss.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis - worst-case scenario, Outcome 2 Any hearing loss.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis - worst-case scenario, Outcome 3 Short-term neurological sequelae.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Sensitivity analysis - worst-case scenario, Outcome 4 Long-term neurological sequelae.