Survey on the use of ototopical medications by New Zealand otolaryngologist/head and neck surgeons.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is increasing awareness of the potential for ototoxicity with the administration of aminoglycoside eardrops in the presence of a non-intact tympanic membrane, whether that is due to a perforation or due to the presence of a patent ventilating tube. Expert panels in the USA, Canada, UK, and Australia have all advocated the preferential use of non-ototoxic topical antibiotics for the discharging middle ear and/or mastoid cavity. The advent of non-ototoxic fluoroquinolone eardrops provides the first real opportunity to prescribe topical therapy in accordance with such guidelines. METHOD: We surveyed practicing otolaryngology/head and neck surgeons in New Zealand to ascertain their clinical preferences as well as to gauge any impediments to utilising safer medical therapies. RESULTS: The major results of this survey, with a 72% response rate, are presented. Notably, a total of 24 cases of sensorineural hearing loss were reported that may have been caused by the use of topical ototoxic medications. CONCLUSION: Based on our survey results and current evidence available in the broader scientific literature, recommendations are made for the prescription of non-ototoxic medications in at-risk situations. However clinicians may be prevented from following such guidelines by the increased costs of these medications, thus leading to decreased patient compliance. There was widespread support for subsidies to be available for the prescription of non-ototoxic fluoroquinolone eardrops for appropriate indications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".