Front. Neurol. Frontiers in Neurology Front. Neurol. 1664-2295 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fneur.2025.1516350 Neurology Review Developing a core outcome set for Menière’s disease trials, the COSMED study: a scoping review on outcomes used in existing trials Boreel Maud M. E. 1 2 * van Esch Babette F. 1 van Beers Maartje A. 1 Kaski Diego 3 Bruintjes Tjasse D. 1 2 van Benthem Peter Paul G. 1 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands 2Apeldoorn Dizziness Centre, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, Netherlands 3Department of Neuro-otology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Edited by: Athanasia Korda, University of Bern, Switzerland

Reviewed by: Marcos Rossi-Izquierdo, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, Spain

Edoardo Porto, Emory University, United States

 *Correspondence: Maud M. E. Boreel, M.M.E.boreel@lumc.nl 11 03 2025 2025 16 1516350 24 10 2024 28 01 2025 Copyright © 2025 Boreel, van Esch, van Beers, Kaski, Bruintjes and van Benthem. 2025 Boreel, van Esch, van Beers, Kaski, Bruintjes and van Benthem

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Introduction

Menière’s disease (MD) is an inner ear disorder characterized by episodic vertigo, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, and aural fullness. As of yet, the etiology of MD remains unknown, which contributes to the lack of an evidence-based treatment. Outcomes and outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) used in trials assessing the effectiveness of potential MD treatment are randomly selected due to the absence of established guidelines on this matter. The objective of this review is to give an overview of the outcome domains, outcomes and OMIs used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treatment effects in MD to 2024. This will be the first step of developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) for MD trials.

 Methods

A literature search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases was conducted from inception to November 2024. All RCTs on the treatment effect of various therapies for patients suffering from MD were included. Among other details, we extracted and analyzed all outcome domains, outcomes, and OMIs used in these RCTs.

 Results

A total of 76 RCTs were included, revealing a diverse range of outcomes and OMIs used across the included studies. Outcome domains encompassed dizziness, hearing, tinnitus, aural fullness, quality of life (QoL) and other. Outcomes used most frequently included: the severity of vertigo attacks, the number of vertigo attacks, vestibular function, hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, QoL related to dizziness, and Qol related to tinnitus. The latter two were most commonly measured with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), the Functional Level Scale (FLS) and the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) respectively. For the other outcomes, there was little uniformity in the use of OMIs. Moreover, there was a notable lack of validated OMIs used in the included RCTs.

 Conclusion

This scoping review highlights the need for standardizing outcome selection for RCTs focusing on the treatment of MD. In this first step of developing a Core Outcome Set for MD, we identified a potential list of outcomes to be used in the next steps of ‘the Core Outcome Set for Menière’s Disease (COSMED)’ study.

 Menière’s disease randomized controlled trial outcome domain outcome measurement instrument core outcome set section-at-acceptance Neuro-Otology Introduction

Menière’s disease (MD) is an inner ear disorder defined by intermittent spontaneous episodes of vertigo, objectified fluctuating bass-perceptive sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, and/or aural fullness (1). The etiology of MD is poorly understood and the definite diagnosis is made based on the above-mentioned symptoms. Partly due to its unknown etiology, an evidence-based treatment has not yet been determined (2). Clinical research on the treatment of MD is being conducted globally, but outcome measures typically differ.

In research, an outcome domain refers to a key area of interest that is relevant to a particular clinical field and can be divided in multiple outcomes. An outcome refers to what is being measured to assess the effect of an exposure or health intervention. An outcome measurement instrument (OMI) is a tool to measure that outcome. OMIs can have various forms such as a single question, a quantitative test or a questionnaire. In MD, outcomes and OMIs used in clinical trials to evaluate effectiveness are generally randomly selected due to the absence of established guidelines on this matter (1). Therefore, multiple studies have emphasized the need for identifying and standardizing relevant outcomes and OMIs used in research focused on assessing treatment options for MD (3, 4). A correct selection of outcomes and its accompanying OMIs in clinical trials is crucial because of the significant impact on patient care. Poor choice of OMIs affects the quality and clinical relevance of trial results. Moreover, inconsistency in the selection of outcomes and OMIs between trials results in failure of the synthesis of evidence and makes comparison of treatment options complicated if not impossible.

A core outcome set (COS) is a consensus-derived set for the least amount of data that ought to be measured and reported in each clinical trial for a particular condition. Implementing a COS in all trials conducted for a specific condition helps to minimize the inefficient and unethical measurement of irrelevant outcomes, thereby minimizing costs, improving quality and comparability. More importantly, the COS reflects the perspectives of various stakeholders worldwide and contains the outcomes that are most important to patients. The use of a COS enhances consistency across different trials, facilitating effective comparison and pooling of results, while also minimizing selective reporting bias (5). Due to the lack of uniformity in selecting outcomes in research focused on MD, ‘the Core Outcome Set for Menière’s Disease (COSMED)’ study aims to develop a standardized, minimal set of outcomes for randomized controlled trials on the treatment of MD.

The development of a COS requires a multi-step consensus process that includes key stakeholder groups. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials organization (COMET) has developed a gold-standard approach to develop a COS which consists of two stages: (1) identify outcomes that should be measured and reported and (2) assess the OMIs most appropriate to measure these outcomes.

As a first step of developing the COSMED, we have conducted a scoping review to give an overview of the outcome domains, outcomes and OMIs used in randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment effects in MD to 2024. The results of this scoping review can be used in subsequent stages of the COS development.

 Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (6). The first step in developing a COS is defining a scope. This refers to the particular area of health care of interest. The scope includes information on the target population, health condition, and interventions the COS intends to be applied to. We developed a search strategy for this scoping review based on the scope we formulated.

Search strategy and data sources

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases were searched for eligible Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on the treatment effect of various therapies for patients suffering from MD from inception to November 2024. With the assistance of a clinical librarian of the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the following research strategy was comprised: (“Meniere Disease”[Majr] OR “Meniere’s”[tiab] OR “Menieres”[tiab] OR “Meniere”[tiab] OR “Ménière’s”[tiab] OR “Ménières”[tiab] OR “Ménière”[tiab] OR “Méniere’s”[tiab] OR “Ménieres”[tiab] OR “Méniere”[tiab] OR “Menière’s”[tiab] OR “Menières”[tiab] OR “Menière”[tiab] OR “Endolymphatic Hydrops”[Majr] OR “Endolymphatic Hydrops”[ti] OR ((cochlea*[ti] OR labyrinth*[ti] OR aural[ti] OR auditory[ti] OR otogenic[ti]) AND (“Vertigo”[Majr] OR “Vertigo”[ti] OR hydrops[ti] OR “Syndrome”[majr] OR syndrom*[ti]))) AND (“study”[tw] OR “studies”[tw] OR clinical trial*[tw] OR “Clinical Trial”[Publication Type] OR RCT*[tw] OR “Therapeutics”[Mesh] OR therap*[tw] OR treatment*[tw] OR intervention*[tw] OR “Treatment Outcome”[Mesh] OR outcome*[tw] OR “effectiveness”[tw] OR “efficacy”[tw] OR “end point”[tw] OR “endpoint”[tw]) NOT (Case Reports[ptyp] OR Case Report*[ti])).

 Study selection

We included RCTs on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for patients with MD. Studies with patients under the age of 18, with a sample size of less than 10, and studies that included patients with a variety of vertigo-related conditions, in which the proportion of results related to patients with MD remained unclear, were excluded. Reviews, animal studies, opinion papers and case reports were also excluded. There were no restrictions on the type of interventions or language. First, all titles and summaries were screened for potentially eligible RCTs. Secondly, articles were evaluated for eligibility by studying abstracts and full-text if necessary. Subsequently, the final decision on inclusion of the study was made.

 Data extraction

Data was extracted using a data extraction form in Excel. For all included studies, details such as title, authors, study design, study year, country, number of participants, intervention specifics, time points and outcomes were systematically assessed and documented. The outcomes and OMIs were extracted from the method and results section of each paper. Subsequently, for each study, we categorized outcomes and OMIs into 6 different outcome domains: dizziness, hearing, tinnitus, aural fullness, quality of life and other. At the end of the data extraction process, a comprehensive list of outcomes and OMIs was conducted. This final list also specified which studies utilized which outcomes and OMIs. For each outcome domain, we provided an overview outlining the used outcomes and OMIs across the included studies.

 Results

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases were searched to November 2024. In total, 9,203 studies were initially identified. Then 7,056 articles were excluded after evaluating the title and summary information. After reviewing both the abstracts and full-texts, 2,147 articles were excluded. As a result, a total of 76 RCTs were included in this study (Figure 1).

Flowchart for sorting search results and selecting studies for inclusion.

From these 76 included studies a total of 38different outcomes and 208 OMIs were identified. An overview of the included studies is presented in Table 1. An overview of all outcome domains, outcomes and OMIs used in the included studies, is presented in Supplementary Table 1.

Overview of included studies.

Included study Study design Country of study Intervention Number of participants Timepoints
Aantaa et al. (1976) (17) Controlled clinical trial Denmark Betahistine hydrochloride (8 mg) vs. prochlorperazine maleate (5 mg) 30 4 and 8 months
Adrion et al. (2016) (18) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, dose-defining trial Germany Placebo vs. betahistine (24mg2d) daily vs. betahistine (48mg3d) 221 1, 4, 6 and 9 months
Albu et al. (2015) (19) Randomized controlled trial Romania IT dexamethasone (4 mg/ml) vs. IT dexamethasone + betahistine (48mg3d) 66 Every 2 months with a total follow-up time of 24 months
Alex et al. (2024) (20) Randomized controlled trial India IT Gentamicin (40 mg/ml) vs. IT methylprednisolone (40 mg/ml) 4 injections given on alternate days. 40 3 months, a period ranging from 24 to 48 months
Bae et al. (2021) (21) Single-institutional, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial South-Korea Gentamicin with normal saline vs. gentamicin with dexamethasone (no dose mentioned) 37 Every 2–3 months until 12 months after the procedure
Bojrab et al. (2018) (22) Randomized, prospective single-blinded placebo-controlled study. USA Endolymphatic sac decompression + steroid injection (dexamethasone (10 g/ml) vs. endolymphatic sac decompression) 35 2, 6, 12 and 24 months
Bremer et al. (2014) (23) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Netherlands IT gentamicin (40 mg/ml) vs. placebo 15 Every 3 months for 2 years
Burkin et al. (1967) (24) Double-blind, randomized, cross-over study USA Betahistine (4mg4d) vs. placebo 22 2 and 4 weeks
Casani et al. (2011) (25) Randomized controlled trial Italy IT gentamicin (40 mg/ml) vs. IT dexamethasone (4 mg/ml) 60 1 month, 1, 2 years
Covelli et al. (2017) (26) Randomized controlled trial Italy 1 month of self-administered low-pressure therapy + tympanostomy vs. tympanostomy only 20 30 days, 3, 6 months
Choudhary et al. (2019) (27) Randomized controlled trial India Intratympanic gentamicin (20 mg/ml) vs. conservative management 32 6 months
van Deelen et al. (1986) (28) A double-blind cross-over placebo-controlled study Netherlands Dyazide (50 mg triamterene and 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide) vs. placebo 33 Every 3 weeks for 34 weeks
Densert et al. (1997) (29) Placebo-controlled, randomized clinical study Sweden Middle ear pressure application vs. placebo 39 Before and after exposure to treatment
Derebery et al. (2004) (30) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial USA Famciclovir (250mg3d first 10 days), then (250mg2d for 80 days) vs. placebo 23 3 months
ElBeltagy et al. (2012) (93) Comparative, prospective randomized 1-year control study Egypt IT dexamethasone (4 mg/ml 0.4 ml) vs. IT gentamycin (40 mg/ml 0.4 ml) 30 6 months and 1 year
Elia et al. (1964) (31) Double-blind, cross-over evaluation USA Betahistine hydrochloride (16mg1d) vs. placebo 20 Every 14 days for 8 weeks
El Shafei et al. (2020) (32) Randomized controlled trial Egypt IT dexamethasone (4 mg/ml) vs. IT dexamethasone (4 mg/ml) through a grommet tube vs. saline (1 ml) through grommet tube 60 3 and 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months
Frew et al. (1976) (33) Double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial Netherlands Betahistine (8mg4d) vs. placebo 28 Every 4 weeks during 36 weeks
Ganança et al. (2009) (34) Randomized, open-label trial Brazil Betahistine (24mg2d) vs. betahistine (16mg3d) 120 4, 12 and 24
Garcia et al. (2013) (35) Randomized controlled cohort study Brazil Virtual reality-based balance rehabilitation program vs. no program 44 6 weeks
Garduño-Anaya et al. (2005) (36) Prospective, randomized, double-blind study Mexico Dexamethasone IT (4 mg/ml) vs. placebo 22 1, 6, 12,18, and 24 months
Gates et al. (2004) (37) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial USA Active Meniett device vs. placebo (identical device that did not generate pressure) 62 Daily (vertigo) + every 3 months (questionnaires)
Guo Fang. (2007) (38) Randomized controlled trial China Both groups: IV drip with 250 ml of 5% glucose, 20 ml of salvia injection and 10 mg of 654–2 at the acute stage and oral administration of sibelium (10mg1d) at the remission stage vs. intervention (acupuncture) 65 Before and after treatment
Gürkov et al. (2012) (39) Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial USA Meniett low-pressure generator vs. placebo (same device but slight pressure increase) 68 1,2,3 and 4 months
Guyot et al. (2008) (40) Double-blind, randomized controlled trial Switzerland intratympanic injection with ganciclovir (50 mg/ml) vs. placebo (NaCl 9%) 29 30, 60, 90 days
Hanner et al. (2010) (41) Prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Sweden Specially processed cereals (1 g/kg body weight/day) vs. placebo 51 3 months
Hsu et al. (2016) (42) Single-blind, randomized controlled trial Taiwan Virtual reality vestibular rehabilitation vs. Cawthorne–Cooksey vestibular rehabilitation 70 4 weeks
Khan et al. (2011) (43) Randomized controlled trial Pakistan Amiloride (5mg1d) + hydrochlorothiazide (50mg1d) vs. betahistine (48mg3d) vs. multivitamin 120 1 year
Kitahara (1986) (44) Multicenter, double-blind trial Japan Isosorbide (63 g) vs. betahistine mesylate (36mg3d) vs. placebo 171 2 and 4 weeks
Kitahara et al. (2008) (45) Randomized controlled trial Japan Endolymphatic sac drainage + steroid instillation vs. endolymphatic sac drainage without steroid instillation vs. control (declined endolymphatic sac drainage) 197 At least 2 years
Kitahara et al. (2016) (46) Randomized controlled and open-label trial Japan Traditional oral medication (diuretics, betahistine, diphenidol, dimenhydrinate and diazepam) vs. abundant water (35 ml/kg/day) intake + traditional oral medication vs. tympanic ventilation tubes + traditional oral medication vs. sleeping in darkness + traditional oral medication. 297 Once a month for at least 24
Lambert et al. (2012) (47) Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study USA IT OTO-104 (3 mg) vs. IT OTO-104 (12 mg) vs. placebo 44 3 months
Lambert et al. (2016) (48) Randomized controlled trial USA IT Oto-104 (60 mg/ml) vs. placebo 154 1, 2, 3, 4 months
Leong et al. (2013) (49) Randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study England Specially processed cereal vs. placebo 39 3 months
Liu et al. (2020) (50) Randomized controlled trial China Betahistine (12mg3d) vs. vestibular rehabilitation (Tetrax biofeedback) vs. no treatment 66 1 month
Lyu et al. (2020) (51) Randomized controlled trial China Post-operative IV dexamethasone (10mg1d) vs. post-operative no dexamethasone 124 1 week, 1, 6 months and 2 years
Martini et al. (1990) (52) Randomized, double-blind study Italy Trimetazidine (60 mg/d) vs. betahistine (12mg3d) 45 1 and 6 months
Masumi et al. (2017) (53) Randomized controlled trial Iran IT dexamethasone (4 mg/dL) vs. IT methylprednisolone (40 mg/dL) 69 1 and 6 months
Meyer et al. (1985) (54) Double-blind, crossover trial vs. placebo Germany Betahistine (36 mg) vs. placebo 40 2, 6, 12 weeks and 1 year
Mira et al. (2003) (55) Double-blind, multi center and parallel-group randomized trial Italy Betahistine (16mg2d) vs. placebo 144 (81 with Menière’s Disease) 15, 30, 60 and 90 days
Miura et al (1994) (56) Randomized controlled study Japan Ibudilast (10mg3d) vs. nothing 46 After treatment (12 weeks)
Morales-Luckie et al (2005) (57) Blinded, randomized controlled trial Mexico Diphenidol (25mg1d) + acetazolamide (250mg48h) vs. diphenidol (25mg1d) + acetazolamide (250mg48h) + prednisone (0.35 mg/kg/d) 16 Every 6 weeks for 1 year
Moser et al. (1984) (58) Prospective, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled trial Austria O-(B-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides (500mg2d) vs. placebo 39 Every month for 7 months
Novotý et al. (2002) (59) Randomized, double-blind, reference-controlled design Czech republic Cinnarizine (20mg1d) + dimenhydrinate (40mg1d) vs. betahistine dimesylate (12mg3d) 82 1,3,6, and 12 weeks
Paragache et al. (2005) (60) Prospective randomized study India IT dexamethasone (0.20 mg/cc) vs. nothing 40 1, 2, 3 and 6 months
Park et al. (2016) (61) Multicenter randomized study South Korea Betahistine (6mg3d) vs. isosorbide (30ml3d) + betahistine (6mg3d) 220 4 and 12 weeks
Patel et al. (2016) (62) Double-blind, randomized controlled trial UK IT gentamicin (40 mg/ml) vs. IT methylprednisolone (62.5 mg/ml) 60 1, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months
Phillips et al. (2023) (63) 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 studies USA and Europe IT oto-104 (12 mg) vs. placebo 487 1,2 and 3 months
Postema et al. (2008) (64) prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial Netherlands Gentamicin sulfate (0.4 ml 30 mg/ml) vs. placebo 35 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months
Ödkvist et al. (2000) (65) Clinical multicentre placebo-controlled study Sweden Overpressure treatment vs. placebo 56 2 weeks
Okamoto (1968) (66) Randomized controlled trial Japan Betahistine dihydrochloride (16mg3d) vs. placebo 40 2 weeks
Rask-Andersen et al. (2005) (67) Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, pilot study Sweden IT Preservative-free latano-prost (50 g/ml) vs. placebo 10 5 and 15 days
Redon et al. (2011) (68) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial France Placebo vs. betahistine (24mg2d) 16 7, 30, 90 days
Ricci et al. (1987) (69) Randomized controlled trial Italy Betahistine hydrochloride (8mg3d) vs. placebo 10 Every week until the end of the trial
Rizk et al. (2024) (70) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot study USA Venlafaxine (37.5mg1d) vs. placebo 40 60 days
Russo et al. (2016) (71) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial France Meniett devise vs. placebo 199 8, 14, 20 weeks
Salami et al. (1984) (72) Double-blind, randomized study Italy Betahistine hydrochloride (8mg3d) vs. placebo 30 Weekly for 6 weeks
Saliba et al. (2015) (73) Randomized controlled trial Canada Endolymphatic duct blockage vs. endolymphatic sac decompression 57 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 18, 24 months
Sarafraz et al. (2015) (74) Randomized controlled trial Iran IT gentamicin (27 mg/ml) vs. IT methylprednisolone (?) 20 3 months
Schmidt et al. (1992) (75) Randomized controlled trial Netherlands Betahistine dihydrochloride (24mg3d) vs. placebo 40 Every month for 33 months
Scott et al. (1994) (76) Experimental between-group, cross-over design with randomization Sweden First transcutaneous nerve stimulation, then applied relaxation vs. first applied relaxation, then transcutaneous nerve stimulation 20 4, 6, 9 and 16 weeks.
Silverstein et al. (1998) (77) Prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study USA IT dexamethasone (16 mg/ml) + sodium hyaluronate (8 mg/ml) vs. placebo 20 Every week for 6 weeks
Stokroos et al. (2004) (78) Prospective, double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial Netherlands Gentamicin (30 mg/m) vs. placebo 22 6 months
Storper et al. (1998) (79) Randomized, prospective study USA Glycopyrrolate (2 mg) vs. placebo 37 4–6 weeks
Teggi et al. (2008) (80) Randomized pilot study Italy Low-level laser therapy 20 min a day with a 5-mW soft laser vs. betahistine (16mg2d) 20 3, 6 months
Thomas et al. (2021) (81) Randomized controlled trial India IT buffered gentamicin (40 mg/ml) vs. IT methylprednisolone (40 mg/ml) 22 3, 24–48 months
Thomsen et al. (1981) (82) Randomized, placebo- controlled study Denmark Endolymphatic sac surgery vs. sham surgery 30 Every month for 12 months
Thomsen et al. (1998) (83) Prospective, randomized, controlled study Denmark Ventilation tube vs. endolymphatic sac shunt operation 29 Every month for 12 months
Thomsen et al. (2005) (84) Clinical, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Denmark Local overpressure therapy vs. placebo 40 2, 4, 8 weeks
Wilmot et al. (1976) (85) Double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, clinical study Ireland Betahistine (16 mg3d) vs. placebo 24 8, 12, 16 and 24 weeks
Wu et al. (2018) (86) Randomized controlled trial China Both: mecobalamine (0.5mg3d) + betahistine (12 m 3d) vs. treatment (acupuncture) 96 12 weeks, 18–24 months
Wu et al. (2023) (87) Single-blind randomized controlled trial China Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation vs. sham transcutaneous auricular nerve stimulation. Both groups: betahistine (6mg3d) 104 12 weeks
Yang et al. (2024) (88) Randomized controlled trial China Low-sodium diet (restricted to 1,500 mg/day) + adequate water intake (35 ml/kg/day) + routine medication vs. routine medication 50 3 months
Yardley et al. (2006) (89) Randomized controlled trial UK Vestibular rehabilitation booklet vs. symptom control booklet vs. waiting list 360 3, 6 months
Yin et al. (2022) (90) Randomized controlled trial China IT dexamethasone ITD1 (2 mg/ml) and ITD2 (5 mg/ml) vs. IT lidocaine (20 mg/ml) 124 1 month
Zarandi et al. (2023) (91) Randomized controlled Trial Iran Nigella sativa oil (1 g capsules) vs. placebo 40 3 months
Zhuang et al. (2022) (92) Randomized controlled trial China Routine outpatient treatment + vestibular rehabilitation for 8 weeks vs. routine outpatient treatment 45 8 weeks
Dizziness

The first and most frequently reported outcome domain in all studies was dizziness. Within this outcome domain, we extracted several outcomes including the number of vertigo attacks, vertigo severity, duration of a vertigo attack, type of episode and vertigo control/improvement. A wide variety of OMIs were used to evaluate these outcomes. Most of these OMIs were non-validated, self-created, symptom assessments or rating scales. The OMI that was used most frequently was the ‘class of vertigo control’, defined according to the AAO-HNS criteria (1). Additionally, within this outcome domain, a wide range of rating scales have been used to measure vertigo severity and vertigo control. Various questionnaires including the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (7) and the Functional Level Score (1) were commonly used, however, these instruments assess vertigo-related quality of life (QoL) and thus are categorized under the outcome domain Qol.

 Hearing

Given that hearing loss, similar to dizziness, serves as a diagnostic prerequisite for MD, numerous studies included hearing loss as an outcome. However, little uniformity was found in the frequencies of pure tone average (PTA) to be measured, with some studies not even specifying the frequencies assessed. In line with the AAO-HNS criteria (1), frequencies most measured were 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz. Seventeen studies measured word recognition scores in addition to PTA (WRS). To determine the statistical significance of hearing loss, most studies assessing hearing, used the AAO-HNS scale where a change of more than 10 decibels in PTA, or a change of 15% in WRS was defined as a clinically significant difference (1).

 Tinnitus

Articles including tinnitus as an outcome frequently faced challenges in specifying their measurement methods. Frequency of tinnitus, tinnitus prevalence, tinnitus presence or absence and the degree of tinnitus improvement were terms that were used in the articles but were not explicitly defined. Eleven different likert scales were used to measure tinnitus severity by 19 different studies. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) (8) was most commonly used, but, similar to the DHI, we categorized this under the core domain QoL.

 Aural fullness

Only 22 out of the 71 RCTs included, measured aural fullness as an outcome measure. All of these studies used OMIs that were not validated such as a variety of different likert scales, recorded in a diary or presence or absence. Furthermore, several studies did not provide details regarding the method used to measure aural fullness.

 Quality of life

The assessment of QoL was categorized into several outcome domains, including QoL related to dizziness and tinnitus. Among the included RCTs, for the evaluation of QoL the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (7), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) (8), and the Functional Level Scale (FLS) defined by the AAO-HNS criteria (1), were predominantly used. Additionally, a variety of questionnaires were used to measure quality of life in relation to dizziness, including the European Evaluation of Vertigo (EEV) scale (9), Vertigo Symptom Scale short form (VSS-SF) (10), Menière’s Disease Patient-Oriented Symptom Severity Index (MD-POSI) (11), Dizziness Beliefs Questionnaire (DBQ) (12), Vestibular Disorders Activities of Daily Living (VDADL) score (13), the Menière’s Disease Outcomes Questionnaire (MDOQ) (14) and the Neuropsychological Vertigo Inventory (NVI) (15). Furthermore, some studies addressed general health-related QoL or aspects related to psychological health, although these aspects were explored in a limited number of studies.

 Other

The most frequently used outcomes which were categorized under ‘other’ were vestibular function, auditory function and balance. The most commonly utilized clinical tests were electronystagmography and electrocochleography. Balance was assessed using a wide range of clinical tests and rating scales.

Other outcome measurements that were evaluated included compliance, tolerability and overall judgment of treatment, quality of appointments, laboratory tests, activity level and other general symptoms, possibly related to MD. These outcome measurements were primarily related to interventions and were highly specific for the respective studies.

 Adverse events

Among all studies included, a wide variety of adverse events was reported. Mostly, the adverse events reported were depending on the specific intervention that was performed and reflecting the risks associated with each intervention type. Due to this wide variation, which was often linked to the type of intervention, we decided not to include adverse events in the list of outcomes for MD.

 Discussion

The key finding of this scoping review was the significant diversity observed in outcome domains, outcomes and OMIs reported across all RCTs included. The outcome domain dizziness was most commonly used and used in 64 out of the 76 studies. Eight additional studies exclusively used the DHI or the VSS-sf to evaluate dizziness, which were categorized under QoL related to dizziness. In total, four articles did not assess dizziness in any capacity. Hearing and tinnitus, which were the next most used domains, and were reported in 61 and 33 studies respectively, whereas 16 studies reported the quality of life related to tinnitus using the THI. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in 35 studies, with a trend indicating that QoL was evaluated less frequently in the older studies. Aural fullness was the least reported outcome domain, featuring in only 22 studies. A notable issue within the outcome domains aural fullness and tinnitus was the lack of clarity regarding the assessment method used to measure outcomes. For instance, some studies evaluated tinnitus loudness or frequency without specifying the measurement method. We concede that tinnitus and aural fullness are challenging symptoms to classify, however, the lack of clarity on how outcome domains were assessed raises concerns about the reliability of these findings. The vestibular function, auditory function and balance categorized under the outcome domain ‘other’ were measured in 34 studies where in the vast majority of studies electronystagmography or electrocochleography was performed.

There was no single outcome that was reported in all studies. However, in the outcome domain QoL, there was a considerable overlap in the OMIs used. QoL related to dizziness was assessed using the DHI in 21 studies and using the FLS in 13 studies. Similarly, QoL related to tinnitus was measured using the THI in 16 studies. The OMI electronystagmography (caloric test) was the OMI most frequently used and was measured in 19 studies. In contrast, there was not much similarity in the OMIs used to measure the outcomes in the other domains. The ‘severity of vertigo attacks’ was the most commonly utilized outcome, though it was assessed using 24 distinct outcome measurement instruments (OMIs). Additionally, the outcome measure number of vertigo attacks was measured in as many as 35 studies using 17 different OMIs. Similarly for the outcome hearing loss, where various combinations of frequencies were used to calculate the PTA. The variation in OMIs used to measure a specific outcome, complicates the comparison of findings between studies. For example, when measuring vertigo severity, studies may use patient self-reported scales, frequency counts of vertigo attacks, or standardized questionnaires like the DHI. A study focusing on attack frequency alone may show different treatment effects than one measuring intensity or overall handicap. This variability makes it challenging to interpret which treatments are genuinely effective across different vertigo dimensions. Such inconsistencies also complicate the development of clinical recommendations, as different aspects of vertigo may influence treatment guidance differently.

Alongside the variation in the use of OMIs, there was an evident absence of validated measurement instruments. For example, to measure vertigo severity, many different rating scales were used. To our knowledge, these scales are not validated.Without proper validation, it is uncertain whether the instrument captures the relevant aspects of the outcome and if it is sensitive enough to detect meaningful changes and which cut-off point are defined as ‘clinically relevant’. This could lead to a misinterpretation of the true effect of the intervention. Furthermore validation establishes that an OMI can be reliably applied across different populations and settings. Non-validated instruments may perform inconsistently across diverse demographic or clinical groups, limiting the comparability of findings. In addition, we could not find any validation studies on the OMIs proposed by the AAO-HNS such as the Functional level score, the class of vertigo control, or the hearing severity scale. However, even though validated questionnaires, like the DHI, are commonly used, their quality may not always be optimal. In a study by Koppelaar-van Eijsden et al. (16), the quality of DHI was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. They concluded that the current evidence for several measurement properties is suboptimal. Furthermore, the DHI might not be the best tool measure vertigo in MD specifically. Furthermore, the DHI may not be the most suitable instrument for assessing vertigo in MD specifically. Firstly, it is not well-suited for episodic syndromes, particularly those characterized by fluctuating symptom severity or clustered attacks. Additionally, the term ‘dizziness’ may not accurately capture the experiences of many MD patients, who often suffer from severe vertigo rather than generalized dizziness.

One of the key strengths of this scoping review is that we did not exclude any studies based on language or availability. In case studies were not available in full text through our institution, we purchased them, if possible, online. Four studies were not available in English and were translated with the aid of artificial intelligence tools. This comprehensive approach ensures that we have captured all outcomes used in recent RCTs in this study.

A limitation of this scoping review was the variability in outcome measures and OMIs across studies, which made data categorization challenging. Several OMIs did not fit into any specific domain, resulting in their classification under the domain “other,” which may reduce the clarity of the overview. Another limitation of this study is that we only assessed studies with two reviewers when there was uncertainty about their inclusion. This may affected the reliability of the selection process.

As previously mentioned, this review is part of the COSMED-study, which will be conducted in two distinct stages. The first stage will focus on identifying outcome domains for inclusion in the COS while the second stage will determine the specific outcomes to assess these domains. To reach consensus on the outcome domains and outcomes to be incorporated into the COS, a Delphi procedure will be conducted at each stage, engaging experts on MD to give their valuable opinion.

This review has collected an extensive list of all outcome domains, outcomes, and OMIs reported in recent RCTs on the treatment of MD and will serve as a basis for the upcoming Delphi procedures. However, it is important to acknowledge that this list primarily reflects the perspectives of clinicians and researchers, potentially overlooking the valuable input of patients. Patients often provide unique perspectives on disease symptoms and how these symptoms affect their daily lives, which may differ significantly from the view of clinicians and researchers. Thus, patient involvement is critical in selecting the outcomes and OMIs to be included in the COS.

To integrate the patient perspective, a focus group meeting with patients will be conducted. In this initial meeting, we will discuss outcome domains that are particularly meaningful for patients with MD. In a subsequent patient focus group during the second stage of the study, we will focus specifically on identifying outcomes that are highly relevant to patients. These patient-derived domains and outcomes, together with those identified through the review, will form the basis of the Delphi procedures for the COSMED-study.

In conclusion, there is a lack of standardized outcomes and OMIs used in RCTs on the treatment of MD. To address this problem, the COSMED study aims to develop a COS for use in RCTs evaluating MD treatments. As a first step, in this study we identified outcome domains, outcomes, and OMIs used in RCTs on the treatment of MD to 2024. The identified outcome domains encompass dizziness, hearing, tinnitus, aural fullness, Qol and other, with a notable variability in outcomes and OMIs observed within these outcome domains. Additionally, we found a lack in the use of validated OMIs. Together with the inconsistency in outcomes and OMIs reported, we emphasize the need for a standardized COS for MD. In this first step of developing a COS for MD, we identified a potential list of outcomes to be used in the next steps of our COSMED study. The development of a COS holds promise for enhancing consistency, comparability, and relevance in evaluating treatment outcomes for MD, ultimately improving patient care and advancing clinical research in this field.

 Author contributions

MB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BvE: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. MvB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. DK: Writing – review & editing. TB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. PvB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Jan W. Schoones, librarian at the Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Center, for his valuable assistance in developing the search strategy.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2025.1516350/full#supplementary-material

 References Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Menière's disease. American Academy of otolaryngology-head and neck foundation, Inc. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (1995) 113:181–5. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70102-8, PMID: 7675476 Basura GJ Adams ME Monfared A Schwartz SR Antonelli PJ Burkard R . Clinical Practice Guideline: Ménière's Disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2020) 162:S1–s55. doi: 10.1177/0194599820909438, PMID: 32267799 Webster KE Lee A Galbraith K Harrington-Benton NA Judd O Kaski D . Intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2023) 2023:Cd015245. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015245.pub2, PMID: 36847608 Lee A Webster KE George B Harrington-Benton NA Judd O Kaski D . Surgical interventions for Ménière's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2023) 2:Cd015249. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015249.pub2, PMID: 36825750 (BD4BO) IMIIBdfbo (2018). A practical toolkit for the identification, selection and measurement of outcomes including in realworld settings. Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O'Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850, PMID: 30178033 Jacobson GP Newman CW. The development of the dizziness handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (1990) 116:424–7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1990.01870040046011, PMID: 2317323 Newman CW Jacobson GP Spitzer JB. Development of the tinnitus handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (1996) 122:143–8. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1996.01890140029007, PMID: 8630207 Mègnigbêto CA Sauvage JP Launois R. The European evaluation of Vertigo (EEV) scale: a clinical validation study. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). (2001) 122:95–102. PMID: 11715268 Yardley L Gresty M Bronstein A Beyts J. Changes in heart rate and respiration rate in patients with vestibular dysfunction following head movements which provoke dizziness. Biol Psychol. (1998) 49:95–108. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(98)00029-5, PMID: 9792487 Murphy MP Gates GA. Measuring the effects of Meniere's disease: results of the patient-oriented severity index (MD POSI) version 1. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. (1999) 108:331–7. doi: 10.1177/000348949910800403, PMID: 10214778 Yardley L Beech S Weinman J. Influence of beliefs about the consequences of dizziness on handicap in people with dizziness, and the effect of therapy on beliefs. J Psychosom Res. (2001) 50:1–6. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00202-6, PMID: 11259793 Cohen HS Kimball KT. Development of the vestibular disorders activities of daily living scale. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2000) 126:881–7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.126.7.881, PMID: 10889001 Kato BM LaRouere MJ Bojrab DI Michaelides EM. Evaluating quality of life after endolymphatic sac surgery: the Ménière’s disease outcomes questionnaire. Otol Neurotol. (2004) 25:339–44. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200405000-00023, PMID: 15129115 Lacroix E Deggouj N Salvaggio S Wiener V Debue M Edwards MG. The development of a new questionnaire for cognitive complaints in vertigo: the neuropsychological Vertigo inventory (NVI). Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2016) 273:4241–9. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4135-x, PMID: 27334526 Koppelaar-van Eijsden HM Schermer TR Bruintjes TD. Measurement properties of the dizziness handicap inventory: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. (2022) 43:e282–97. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003448, PMID: 35147600 Aantaa E Skinhoj A. Controlled clinical trial comparing the effect of betahistine hydrochloride and prochlorperazine maleate on patients with Meniére's disease. Ann Clin Res. (1976) 8:284–7. PMID: 793500 Adrion C Fischer CS Wagner J Gürkov R Mansmann U Strupp M. Efficacy and safety of betahistine treatment in patients with Meniere's disease: primary results of a long term, multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, dose defining trial (BEMED trial). BMJ. (2016) 352:h6816. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6816, PMID: 26797774 Albu S Chirtes F Trombitas V Nagy A Marceanu L Babighian G . Intratympanic dexamethasone versus high dosage of betahistine in the treatment of intractable unilateral Meniere disease. Am J Otolaryngol. (2015) 36:205–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.10.032, PMID: 25510210 Alex A Mammen MD Lepcha A Reka K Augustine AM Philip A. A randomised controlled trial comparing Intratympanic gentamicin with methylprednisolone in Meniere's disease with good hearing. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024) 76:3793–9. doi: 10.1007/s12070-024-04749-x, PMID: 39376375 Bae SH Lee JM Lee HJ Na G Kim SH. Effect of dexamethasone combination with gentamicin in Chemical Labyrinthectomy on hearing preservation and Vertigo control in patients with unilateral Meniere's disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Med. (2021) 10:5581. doi: 10.3390/jcm10235581, PMID: 34884281 Bojrab DI II LaRouere MJ Babu S Sargent E Chan E Hong R . Endolymphatic sac decompression with intra-sac dexamethasone injection in Menière's disease. Otol Neurotol. (2018) 39:616–21. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001810, PMID: 29738389 Bremer HG van Rooy I Pullens B Colijn C Stegeman I van der Zaag-Loonen HJ . Intratympanic gentamicin treatment for Ménière's disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on dose efficacy - results of a prematurely ended study. Trials. (2014) 15:328. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-328, PMID: 25135244 Burkin A. Betahistine treatment for Meniere's syndrome. Clin Med. (1967) 74:41–8. Casani AP Piaggi P Cerchiai N Seccia V Sellari S Dallan I. Intratympanic treatment of intractable unilateral Meniere disease: gentamicin or dexamethasone? A randomized controlled trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2012) 146:430–7. doi: 10.1177/0194599811429432, PMID: 22101095 Covelli E Volpini L Atturo F Benincasa AT Filippi C Tarentini S . Delayed effect of active pressure treatment on endolymphatic Hydrops. Audiol Neurotol. (2017) 22:24–9. doi: 10.1159/000472245, PMID: 28514787 Choudhary A Biswas K Basak B Ghosh S Bhattacharya D. Intratympanic low dose gentamicin in intractable Meniere’s disease- chemical labyrinthectomy revisited. J Evol Med Dent Sci. (2019) 8:1843–7. doi: 10.14260/jemds/2019/405 van Deelen GW Huizing EH. Use of a diuretic (Dyazide) in the treatment of Menière's disease. A double-blind cross-over placebo-controlled study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. (1986) 48:287–92. doi: 10.1159/000275884, PMID: 3537899 Densert B Densert O Arlinger S Sass K Odkvist L. Immediate effects of middle ear pressure changes on the electrocochleographic recordings in patients with Menière's disease: a clinical placebo-controlled study. Am J Otolaryngol. (1997) 18:726–33. PMID: 9391668 Derebery MJ Fisher LM Iqbal Z. Randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of famciclovir for reduction of Ménière's disease symptoms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2004) 131:877–84. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.08.012, PMID: 15577784 Elia JC. Double-blind evaluation of a new treatment for Ménière's syndrome. JAMA. (1966) 196:187–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.1966.03100150133043, PMID: 5325201 El Shafei RR Qotb M. Comparison of the effect of three treatment interventions for the control of Meniere’s disease: a randomized control trial. Egypt J Otolaryngol. (2020) 36:22. doi: 10.1186/s43163-020-00018-0 Frew IJ Menon GN. Betahistine hydrochloride in Méniére's disease. Postgrad Med J. (1976) 52:501–3. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.52.610.501, PMID: 790351 Ganança MM Caovilla HH Ganança FF. Comparable efficacy and tolerability between twice daily and three times daily betahistine for Ménière's disease. Acta Otolaryngol. (2009) 129:487–92. doi: 10.1080/00016480802273082, PMID: 18615332 Garcia AP Ganança MM Cusin FS Tomaz A Ganança FF Caovilla HH. Vestibular rehabilitation with virtual reality in Ménière's disease. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. (2013) 79:366–74. doi: 10.5935/1808-8694.20130064, PMID: 23743754 Garduño-Anaya MA Couthino De Toledo H Hinojosa-González R Pane-Pianese C Ríos-Castañeda LC. Dexamethasone inner ear perfusion by intratympanic injection in unilateral Ménière's disease: a two-year prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2005) 133:285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2005.05.010, PMID: 16087029 Gates GA Green JD Jr Tucci DL Telian SA. The effects of transtympanic micropressure treatment in people with unilateral Meniere's disease. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2004) 130:718–25. doi: 10.1001/archotol.130.6.718, PMID: 15210552 Guo F. Observation on treatment of dizziness mainly by acupuncture. J Tradit Chin Med. (2007) 27:16–8. PMID: 17393617 Gürkov R Filipe Mingas LB Rader T Louza J Olzowy B Krause E. Effect of transtympanic low-pressure therapy in patients with unilateral Menière's disease unresponsive to betahistine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial. J Laryngol Otol. (2012) 126:356–62. doi: 10.1017/S0022215112000102, PMID: 22365373 Guyot JP Maire R Delaspre O. Intratympanic application of an antiviral agent for the treatment of Ménière's disease. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. (2008) 70:21–7. doi: 10.1159/000111044, PMID: 18235202 Hanner P Rask-Andersen H Lange S Jennische E. Antisecretory factor-inducing therapy improves the clinical outcome in patients with Ménière's disease. Acta Otolaryngol. (2010) 130:223–7. doi: 10.3109/00016480903022842, PMID: 19479454 Hsu SY Fang TY Yeh SC Su MC Wang PC Wang VY. Three-dimensional, virtual reality vestibular rehabilitation for chronic imbalance problem caused by Ménière's disease: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil. (2017) 39:1601–6. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1203027, PMID: 27418422 Khan BH Ahmed ZA Khan RA, editors. (2011). Effects of diuretic and vasodilator therapy in Meniere's disease. Kitahara M Watanabe I Hinoki M Mizukoshi K Matsunaga T. Clinical study of isosorbide on Meniere's disease inter-group comparative study with betahistine mesylate by multicentered double-blind trial. Otologia fukuoka. (1986) 32:44–92. Kitahara T Kubo T Okumura S Kitahara M. Effects of endolymphatic sac drainage with steroids for intractable Meniere's disease: a long-term follow-up and randomized controlled study. Laryngoscope. (2008) 118:854–61. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e3181651c4a, PMID: 18520184 Kitahara T Okamoto H Fukushima M Sakagami M Ito T Yamashita A . A two-year randomized trial of interventions to decrease stress hormone vasopressin production in patients with Meniere's disease-a pilot study. PLoS One. (2016) 11:e0158309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158309, PMID: 27362705 Lambert PR Nguyen S Maxwell KS Tucci DL Lustig LR Fletcher M . A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study to assess safety and clinical activity of OTO-104 given as a single intratympanic injection in patients with unilateral Ménière's disease. Otol Neurotol. (2012) 33:1257–65. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318263d35d, PMID: 22858715 Lambert PR Carey J Mikulec AA LeBel C S. Intratympanic sustained-exposure dexamethasone thermosensitive gel for symptoms of Ménière's disease: randomized phase 2b safety and efficacy trial. Otol Neurotol. (2016) 37:1669–76. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001227, PMID: 27749754 Leong SC Narayan S Lesser TH. Antisecretory factor–inducing therapy improves patient-reported functional levels in Meniere's disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. (2013) 122:619–24. doi: 10.1177/000348941312201004, PMID: 24294684 Liu JL Liu JG Chen XB Liu YH. The benefits of betahistine or vestibular rehabilitation (Tetrax biofeedback) on the quality of life and fall risk in patients with Ménière's disease. J Laryngol Otol. (2020) 134:1073–6. doi: 10.1017/S0022215120002509, PMID: 33280619 Lyu Y Zhang D Li X Han Y Li Y Wang J . Dexamethasone protects the hearing of Meniere's disease patients after triple semicircular canal plugging. Acta Otolaryngol. (2020) 140:803–7. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2020.1775292, PMID: 32564634 Martini A De Domenico F. Trimetazidine versus betahistine in Ménière's disease. A double blind method. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac. (1990) 107:20–7. Masoumi E Dabiri S Khorsandi MT Erfanian R Sohrabpour S Yazdani N . Methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone for control of Vertigo in patients with definite Meniere's disease. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. (2017) 29:341–6. PMID: 29383315 Meyer ED. Treatment of Meniere disease with betahistine dimesilate (Aequamen)--double-blind study versus placebo (crossover). Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg). (1985) 64:269–72. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1008135, PMID: 3894841 Mira E Guidetti G Ghilardi L Fattori B Malannino N Maiolino L . Betahistine dihydrochloride in the treatment of peripheral vestibular vertigo. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. (2003) 260:73–7. doi: 10.1007/s00405-002-0524-4, PMID: 12582782 Miura M Naito E Tsuji J Naito Y. Ketas treatment for Meniere's disease. Pract Otol. (1994) 87:1733–8. doi: 10.5631/jibirin.87.1733 Morales-Luckie E Cornejo-Suarez A Zaragoza-Contreras MA Gonzalez-Perez O. Oral administration of prednisone to control refractory vertigo in Ménière's disease: a pilot study. Otol Neurotol. (2005) 26:1022–6. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185057.81962.51, PMID: 16151353 Moser M Ranacher G Wilmot TJ Golden GJ. A double-blind clinical trial of hydroxyethylrutosides in Menière's disease. J Laryngol Otol. (1984) 98:265–72. doi: 10.1017/S0022215100146547, PMID: 6366100 Novotný M Kostrica R. Fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate versus betahistine dimesylate in the treatment of Ménière's disease: a randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical study. Int Tinnitus J. (2002) 8:115–23. PMID: 14763223 Paragache G Panda NK Ragunathan M Sridhara. Intratympanic dexamethasone application in Meniere's disease-is it superior to conventional therapy? Indian. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2005) 57:21–3. doi: 10.1007/BF02907620, PMID: 23120117 Park HW Chung WH Kim SH Kim KS Chung JW Chae SW . Multicenter randomized study on the efficacy of isosorbide in patients with Ménière’s disease. Res Vestib Sci. (2016) 15:44–50. Patel M Agarwal K Arshad Q Hariri M Rea P Seemungal BM . Intratympanic methylprednisolone versus gentamicin in patients with unilateral Ménière's disease: a randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial. Lancet. (2016) 388:2753–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31461-1, PMID: 27865535 Phillips J Mikulec AA Robinson JM Skarinsky D Anderson JJ. Efficacy of intratympanic OTO-104 for the treatment of Ménière's disease: the outcome of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Am J Otolaryngol. (2023) 44:584–92. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003886, PMID: 37185596 Postema RJ Kingma CM Wit HP Albers FW Van Der Laan BF. Intratympanic gentamicin therapy for control of vertigo in unilateral Menire's disease: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Acta Otolaryngol. (2008) 128:876–80. doi: 10.1080/00016480701762458, PMID: 18607963 Odkvist LM Arlinger S Billermark E Densert B Lindholm S Wallqvist J. Effects of middle ear pressure changes on clinical symptoms in patients with Ménière's disease--a clinical multicentre placebo-controlled study. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. (2000) 543:99–101. doi: 10.1080/000164800454107, PMID: 10908991 Okamoto K Hazeyama F Taira T Yoshida A Onoda T. Therapeutic results of betahistine on Meniere's disease. Multi-variable analysis of the results of the double blind test and Fisher's evaluation method. Iryo. (1968) 22:650–66. PMID: 4972506 Rask-Andersen H Friberg U Johansson M Stjernschantz J. Effects of intratympanic injection of latanoprost in Meniere's disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, pilot study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2005) 133:441–3. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2005.05.043, PMID: 16143197 Redon C Lopez C Bernard-Demanze L Dumitrescu M Magnan J Lacour M . Betahistine treatment improves the recovery of static symptoms in patients with unilateral vestibular loss. J Clin Pharmacol. (2011) 51:538–48. doi: 10.1177/0091270010369241, PMID: 20940335 Ricci V Sittoni V Nicora M. Efficaci and safety of betahistino hydrochloride versus placebo in Meniere's disease. Rivista Italiana di Otorinolaringologia Audiologia e Foniatria. (1987) 7:347–50. Rizk H Monaghan NP Shah S Liu Y Keith BA Jeong S . Efficacy of a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor as a treatment for Meniere disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2024) 150:935–42. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2024.2241, PMID: 39235772 Russo FY Nguyen Y de D Bouccara D Sterkers O Ferrary E . Meniett device in meniere disease: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Laryngoscope. (2017) 127:470–5. doi: 10.1002/lary.26197, PMID: 27515294 Salami A Delle PM Tinelli E Jankowska B Dellepiane M. Double blind study between betahistine hydrochloride and placebo in the treatment of Meniere's syndromes. Valsalva. (1984) 60:302–12. Saliba I Gabra N Alzahrani M Berbiche D. Endolymphatic duct blockage: a randomized controlled trial of a novel surgical technique for Ménière's disease treatment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2015) 152:122–9. doi: 10.1177/0194599814555840, PMID: 25403881 Sarafraz M Saki N Nikakhlagh S Mashali L Arad A. Comparison the efficacy of intratympanic injections of methylprednisolone and gentamicin to control vertigo in unilateral Ménière’s disease. Biomed Pharmacol J. (2015) 8:705–9. doi: 10.13005/bpj/772 Schmidt JT Huizing EH. The clinical drug trial in Menière's disease with emphasis on the effect of betahistine SR. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. (1992) 497:1–189. PMID: 1496890 Scott B Larsen HC Lyttkens L Melin L. An experimental evaluation of the effects of transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TNS) and applied relaxation (AR) on hearing ability, tinnitus and dizziness in patients with Menière's disease. Br J Audiol. (1994) 28:131–40. doi: 10.3109/03005369409086560, PMID: 7841897 Silverstein H Isaacson JE Olds MJ Rowan PT Rosenberg S. Dexamethasone inner ear perfusion for the treatment of Meniere's disease: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Am J Otolaryngol. (1998) 19:196–201. PMID: 9520056 Stokroos R Kingma H. Selective vestibular ablation by intratympanic gentamicin in patients with unilateral active Ménière's disease: a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Acta Otolaryngol. (2004) 124:172–5. doi: 10.1080/00016480410016621, PMID: 15072419 Storper IS Spitzer JB Scanlan M. Use of glycopyrrolate in the treatment of Meniere's disease. Laryngoscope. (1998) 108:1442–5. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199810000-00004, PMID: 9778280 Teggi R Bellini C Fabiano B Bussi M. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in Ménière's disease: a pilot study of 10 patients. Photomed Laser Surg. (2008) 26:349–53. doi: 10.1089/pho.2007.2186, PMID: 18665761 Thomas L Lepcha A Reka K Augustine AM Alex A Philip A . Comparing Intratympanic gentamicin with methylprednisolone in Meniere's disease with non-serviceable hearing. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2022) 74:3738–45. doi: 10.1007/s12070-021-02528-6, PMID: 36742746 Thomsen J Bretlau P Tos M Johnsen NJ. Placebo effect in surgery for Ménière's disease. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study on endolymphatic sac shunt surgery. Arch Otolaryngol. (1981) 107:271–7. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1981.00790410009002, PMID: 7013741 Thomsen J Bonding P Becker B Stage J Tos M. The non-specific effect of endolymphatic sac surgery in treatment of Meniere's disease: a prospective, randomized controlled study comparing "classic" endolymphatic sac surgery with the insertion of a ventilating tube in the tympanic membrane. Acta Otolaryngol. (1998) 118:769–73. doi: 10.1080/00016489850182413, PMID: 9870617 Thomsen J Sass K Odkvist L Arlinger S. Local overpressure treatment reduces vestibular symptoms in patients with Meniere's disease: a clinical, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Otol Neurotol. (2005) 26:68–73. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200501000-00012, PMID: 15699722 Wilmot TJ Menon GN. Betahistine in Ménière's disease. J Laryngol Otol. (1976) 90:833–40. doi: 10.1017/S0022215100082785, PMID: 787460 Wu D Liu B Wang H Rong P Chen L Duan J . Acupuncture combined with oral western medication for Meniere's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. (2018) 38:1047–52. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.2018.10.005, PMID: 30672233 Wu D Liu B Wu Y Wang Y Sun J Yang J . Meniere disease treated with transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation combined with betahistine Mesylate: a randomized controlled trial. Brain Stimul. (2023) 16:1576–84. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2023.10.003, PMID: 37838094 Yang X Lin C Wu Q Li L Mei X. Low-sodium diet with adequate water intake improved the clinical efficacy in Ménière's disease. Acta Otolaryngol. (2024) 144:14–8. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2024.2315302, PMID: 38375677 Yardley L Kirby S. Evaluation of booklet-based self-management of symptoms in Ménière disease: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosom Med. (2006) 68:762–9. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000232269.17906.92, PMID: 17012531 Yin G Zhicheng L Zhang S Wang X Yang J Cai H . Analysis of the efficacy and safety of Intratymapanic dexamethasone for treating Meniere’s disease: a randomized controlled trial. Ear Nose Throat J. (2022):014556132211207. doi: 10.1177/01455613221120729, PMID: 36154509 Motesadi Zarandi M Rabbani Z Rabbani Anari M Kouhi A Zeinaloo M. A study of efficacy of Nigella sativa in treatment of Meniere's disease: a randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial. J Otolaryngol. (2023) 18:97–100. doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2023.02.002, PMID: 37153706 Zhuang Y Wu P Li W Xi S. The effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in Ménière's disease patients with chronic imbalance. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. (2022) 36:675–8;84. doi: 10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2022.09.005 ElBeltagy YF Shafik AG Mahmoud AM Hazaa NM. Intratympanic injection in Meniere’s disease; symptomatic and audiovestibular; comparative, prospective randomized 1-year control study. Egypt J Otolaryngol. (2012) 28:171–83. doi: 10.7123/01.EJO.0000418018.88180.0c