Intratympanic therapy in Meniere's syndrome or disease: up to date evidence for clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meniere's syndrome or disease (MS/D) is typically characterised by episodic vertigo, aural fullness, tinnitus and fluctuating hearing loss. There are multiple options available for treatment with variation in consensus on the best intervention. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of intratympanic therapies [steroids, gentamicin, antivirals and other therapies] on the frequency and severity of vertigo and other symptoms of MS/D. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed on AMED, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, HEALTH BUSINESS ELITE, CENTRAL and Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat disorders group trials register using various MeSH. The search was restricted to English and human subjects, and the last date of search was December 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of intratympanic therapies [steroids, gentamicin antivirals and latanoprost] versus a placebo or another treatment. RESULTS: We analysed 8 RCT's comparing intratympanic steroids, gentamicin, ganciclovir (antiviral) and latanoprost versus another form of intratympanic treatment or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of 6 RCT's (n = 242), there is evidence to support the effectiveness of intratympanic steroids and gentamicin to control symptoms of vertigo in MS/D albeit with a risk of hearing loss with gentamicin. However, there was no consensus found on doses or treatment protocols. There was no evidence to support the use of other forms of intratympanic therapy (antivirals and latanoprost) in MS/D.
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 | 0.036 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".