Intratympanic Gentamicin for Menière's Disease: a Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the published experience on intratympanic gentamicin treatment for intractable Menière's disease. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis using a random effect model. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed for articles using intratympanic gentamicin as a sole treatment modality with reporting of results according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) guidelines for Menière's disease. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. RESULTS: Fifteen trials with 627 patients met the inclusion criteria. All trials reported "before-after" outcome measures, using patients as their own controls. No double-blind or blinded prospective control trials were identified. Complete (class A) vertigo control was achieved in 74.7% (confidence interval [CI]95% 67.8-81.5%) of patients, and complete or substantial (class B) control was achieved in 92.7% (CI95% 89.5-96.0%). The success rate was not affected by gentamicin treatment regimen (fixed vs. titration). Hearing level and word recognition were not adversely affected, regardless of gentamicin treatment regimen. Analysis of functional level was not performed because of lack of data in the selected articles. CONCLUSIONS: Intratympanic gentamicin treatment for intractable Menière's disease appears to be effective in the relief of vertigo. Cochleotoxicity and ototoxicity is unlikely to be a major side effect. However, the level of evidence reflected from the eligible articles is insufficient, especially because of relatively poor study design. Therefore, it is prudent that patients eligible for this type of treatment should be selected carefully and titrated with low-dose gentamicin. Further investigation with this treatment modality with control subjects is warranted.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".