A systematic review of the effect of different crimping techniques in stapes surgery for otosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the effect of crimping techniques in stapes surgery for otosclerosis patients measured by hearing outcomes on pure-tone audiometry. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Studies comparing the effect of different crimping methods on pure-tone audiometric results in patients undergoing stapes surgery for otosclerosis were included. Relevance and risk of bias were assessed. Absolute risks and risk differences, means and mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals were extracted or calculated for the primary and secondary outcomes, which were air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less, mean postoperative air-bone gap, and postoperative sensorineural hearing loss. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with moderate or high risk of bias were included for data extraction. Air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less was assessed in 17 studies and mean postoperative air-bone gap in 20 studies. The hearing outcomes did not consistently favor one crimping method. However, the differences that were statistically significant were consistently in favor of heat crimping over manual and no crimping (difference in air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less ranged between 22% and 42% in these studies and difference in mean postoperative air-bone gap between 2.8 dB and 7.4 dB) and in favor of manual crimping over no crimping (30% difference in air-bone gap closure to 10 dB or less and difference in mean postoperative air-bone gap between 2.6 dB and 6.0 dB). CONCLUSION: Moderate to high risk of bias and inconsistent results characterize the current evidence. Laryngoscope, 126:1207-1217, 2016.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".