Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tympanic membrane retractions are commonly managed by ENT surgeons. There is currently no consensus as to the indications, timing and options for management of this condition. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of different surgical options in the management of tympanic membrane retractions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010 Issue 1); PubMed (1950 to 2010); EMBASE (1974 to 2010); CINAHL (1982 to 2010); BIOSIS Previews; ISI Web of Science; CAB Abstracts; LILACS; KoreaMed; IndMed; PakMediNet; China National Knowledge Infrastructure; ISCTRN; UKCRN; ICTRP and Google. The date of the search was 17 March 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the surgical management of tympanic membrane retraction pockets in adults or children. Staging of the retraction using a known system must have been performed. Studies of cholesteatoma or perforations were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently collected and analysed data to minimise the effects of selection and reporting bias. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included, involving 71 participants. The first study showed no statistically significant benefit of cartilage graft tympanoplasty over a watch and wait policy for either disease progression or hearing outcome. The second showed no additional benefit from the insertion of ventilation tubes over cartilage tympanoplasty alone with regards to hearing outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence currently exists to either support or refute the role of surgery in the management of tympanic membrane retractions. Higher quality studies are much needed to ascertain this.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".