Do Corticosteroids Prevent Hearing Loss in Pediatric Bacterial Meningitis? An Analysis of the Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the MEDLINE database of articles published from January 1966 through December 2001 in search of data on the ability of the corticosteroid dexamethasone to protect against sensorineural hearing loss in children with meningitis. We found 1,034 articles that matched our keyword entries, and after various exclusions, we winnowed this number down to 16 articles that contained adequate data regarding audiometric evaluation and follow-up. The 16 articles included reports of 11 randomized controlled trials (only 10 are considered in this analysis), two meta-analyses, two retrospective case series, and two consensus statements. Of the 10 clinical trials (all of which contained level I evidence), four showed that dexamethasone had a protective effect and six showed that it did not. The authors of the two meta-analyses (both level I) concluded that there was a protective effect, and the authors of the two retrospective case series (both level IV) concluded that there was not. Both consensus statements (both level V) recommended the use of dexamethasone only in Haemophilus influenzae meningitis. We conclude that well-designed studies with level l evidence have shown that the benefit of dexamethasone in preventing hearing loss in children with meningitis remains unclear Significant variables in treatment response include the specific pathogen, the type of antibiotic, and the timing of dexamethasone administration.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".