Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify, evaluate, and review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL). DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search and hand search were conducted to identify RCTs published between January 1966 and February 2006 in the English language on the treatment of SSHL. Search terms included hearing loss, sensorineural (MeSH term), sensorineural hearing loss (text words), and sudden deafness (text words). STUDY SELECTION: Prospective RCTs on the treatment of patients diagnosed as having SSHL. DATA EXTRACTION: One independent observer extracted study data. Validity was evaluated using standard criteria. Characteristics and results were reviewed systematically. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 21 RCTs were identified regarding various treatments, including systemic and intratympanic steroids; antiviral and hemodilution agents; mineral, vitamin, and herbal preparations; batroxobin; carbogen; and hyperbaric oxygen. All studies used audiometric outcome measures. Only 2 studies used identical criteria to define SSHL. The method of randomization was described in 2 studies. Validity scores ranged from 2 to 8 (of 9). Positive results were reported favoring systemic steroids, intratympanic steroids, batroxobin, magnesium, vitamin E, and hyperbaric oxygen, although there were serious limitations in each study with a positive finding. There was no difference in audiometric outcomes reported across all studies of antiviral and hemodilution agents and no difference in one study of systemic steroids vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, no valid RCT exists to determine effective treatment of SSHL. Systemic steroids cannot be considered the gold standard of treatment of SSHL, given the severe limitations of the landmark study supporting their use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".