Early Placement of Ventilation Tubes in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Studies have shown that the majority of cleft lip and palate (CLP) children have middle ear fluid present at the time of lip repair (3-4 months). Despite hearing loss, the majority of children do not undergo ventilation tube treatment if required until the time of palate repair (9-12 months). We aimed to examine the effectiveness and potential complications of early ventilation tube placement prior to palatoplasty in infants with cleft lip and palate. Data Sources Medline (1946-2015), Embase (1980-2015), and EBM Reviews (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled). Review Methods Data sources were searched for publications that described the results of early ventilation tube placement in children with CLP prior to cleft palate repair. Two independent reviewers appraised the selected studies. Results Of 226 studies identified, 6 studies met the inclusion criteria. Early ventilation tube insertion in CLP gave similar speech and audiology outcomes to non-CLP children undergoing ventilation tube insertion and better outcomes than those children with CLP having later ventilation tube insertion at or after the time of palate closure. The main reported side effect was otorrhea, being higher for children with CLP having early ventilation tube insertion (67% vs 33%), with a reduction in otorrhea with increasing age. Larger studies with longer-term outcome reporting are required to fully address the study objectives. Conclusion Published data are limited but appear to support early insertion of ventilation tubes in children with CLP to restore middle ear function and maximize audiologic and speech 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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".