A Systematic Review of Diuretics in the Medical Management of Ménière’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) Review evidence for the use of oral diuretic medications in the management of Ménière's disease. (2) Analyze therapy-related hearing and vertigo outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Literature was obtained through directed searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO Host, Cochrane Reviews, and linked citations through seminal papers. We searched independent electronic databases for articles that reported the use of diuretics in patients with Ménière's disease. REVIEW METHODS: All articles of level 4 evidence or higher, per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, were included with no limit for number of patients, duration of therapy, or follow-up period. Two independent investigators reviewed the articles for inclusion eligibility. Outcomes were tabulated, including subjective or quantitative measures of hearing, tinnitus, vertigo episode frequency, and medication adverse effects. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included from 1962 to 2012 from 11 countries. Twelve retrospective case series, 4 randomized controlled trials, 2 case-control trials, and 1 prospective case series were identified. Six studies investigated isosorbide; 5, hydrochlorothiazide; 2, acetazolamide; 2, chlorthalidone; and 1 each of betahistine, hydrochlorothiazide, chlorthalidone, acetazolamide, hydrochlorothiazide-triamterene, and nimodipine. Eight (42.1%) studies reported hearing outcomes improvement. Fifteen (79.0%) studies reported vertigo outcomes improvement. Ten (52.6%) studies reported no side effects, and 4 studies (21.1%) reported abdominal discomfort. No significant morbidity or mortality was reported in any study. CONCLUSION: Multiple low evidence-level studies report that oral diuretic therapy may be beneficial in the medical management of Ménière's disease. Improvement in vertigo episode frequency was consistently reported, with less convincing evidence for improvement in hearing outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".