Ménière’s Syndrome or Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and trends in published literature on the treatment of Ménière's syndrome or disease (MS/D) by comparing studies published in the last two decades. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed on AMED, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, HEALTH BUSINESS ELITE, CENTRAL and Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat disorders groups trials register using a combination of MeSH. The date of last search was October 2014. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Two hundred five studies (104 in decade I and 101 in decade II) were evaluated to report trends in the management of this condition, the differing levels of evidence published for each treatment modality, evaluate whether the guidelines published by the AAOHNS-Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium had been correctly employed, and whether the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were compliant with the CONSORT guidelines. RESULTS: The number of published RCTs almost tripled from decade I (1994-2003) to decade II (2004-2103). There was a significant decline in the use of surgical intervention (p = 0.013); however, the number of studies involving the use of intratympanic injection remained largely unchanged. There was a shift in the level of evidence in published studies; studies with level 1 evidence tripled from decade I to II (4.8 to 17.8%, respectively) (p = 0.03); however, compliance with the AAOHNS-CHE criteria for reporting treatment outcomes and the CONSORT checklist was still poor. CONCLUSION: Although the evidence base on published literature on MS/D has improved over the last decade with an increase in emphasis on RCTs and quality of life (QoL) studies, a significant number of studies failed to follow AAOHNS-CHE criteria for reporting treatment outcome and the CONSORT criteria for reporting RCTs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".