ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Ménière's Disease: A Tri-Decade Scoping Review of Treatment Trends and Evidence Quality.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMénière's disease (MD) is a complex inner ear disorder defined by endolymphatic hydrops and a triad of episodic vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, and tinnitus. Despite AAO-HNS diagnostic guidelines, disease heterogeneity and lack of treatment consensus persist.
objectiveThis study conducts a tri-decade scoping review (1994-2024) to evaluate the MD evidence base, shifts in management, and methodological rigor regarding AAO-HNS and CONSORT compliance. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane (2014-2024) identified English-language RCTs and prospective cohorts involving adults. Studies were graded via the Oxford CEBM system, with guideline compliance analyzed using IBM SPSS v29.0. A scoping review framework was adopted to map the "Quality Paradox" between evidence hierarchy and reporting standards.
resultsFrom 1344 publications, 257 studies met inclusion criteria. While research volume surged-with Level 2 studies quadrupling (p < 0.01) and Level 3 studies tripling (p < 0.05)-reporting standards significantly declined. Adherence to AAO-HNS diagnostic and treatment-outcome criteria dropped to 73% and 34%, respectively. Clinically, management shifted toward preservation-focused interventions, including hydrops-visualizing MRI, intratympanic steroids over gentamicin, and increased cochlear implantation, alongside a decline in positive-pressure device use.
conclusionThe MD evidence base increasingly favors non-ablative, patient-centered interventions. However, the validity of these advancements is threatened by a significant decline in reporting compliance. To safeguard the evidence base, journals must enforce standardized reporting as a nonnegotiable prerequisite for publication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.