Steroids in rhinoplasty: a survey of current UK otolaryngologists' practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of steroids during rhinoplasty to reduce post-operative periorbital oedema and ecchymosis has been advocated. A number of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of steroids in rhinoplasty. The aim of this study was to determine current UK practice in the use of steroids during rhinoplasty performed by otolaryngologists. A postal survey of consultant otolaryngologists in the UK was conducted. We received 203 responses, with 115 consultants performing 12 or more rhinoplasties per year. Only 28 consultants (24 per cent) used steroids routinely in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and of these 11 used a protocol, although this was unpublished. Dexamethasone was the most common steroid used (82 per cent), being administered as a single intravenous dose of 8 mg in the majority of cases (54 per cent). There was no correlation between the use of steroids and the number of rhinoplasties performed by individual consultants. Despite the evidence supporting the use of steroids to reduce post-operative sequelae following rhinoplasty, only a minority of consultants in the UK appear to use them as part of their practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".