Systematic Review of Intratympanic Gentamicin in Meniere's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess and summarize the best available evidence for the use of intratympanic gentamicin in patients with Meniere's disease with respect to improvement of vertigo, tinnitus, and change in hearing. METHODS: Comprehensive electronic searches were conducted on the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All generated titles were reviewed, and potentially relevant articles were assessed for inclusion. Data from included articles were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Overall pooled results on vertigo control revealed complete or substantial control in 89% of patients (study range 73-100%). Hearing was worsened in 26% (0-90%). Subjective improvement in tinnitus was seen in 57% of patients (0-82%). Different treatment protocols all resulted in similar rates of vertigo control. CONCLUSIONS: Intratympanic gentamicin appears effective in controlling the symptoms of Meniere's disease, regardless of the protocol used. Although the literature on this treatment is extensive, there is a likelihood of significant bias in many currently published reports. There is a clear need for a prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial to assess the true effectiveness of this treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".