Hi Citiview, thanks for sending me the paper. Had a read of the paper and trying to convert what I've read to something tangible for us ANers.
The disparity across the US is outstanding. Even in California, in LA surgery is far more favored but as you move to SF it becomes more observation or radiation oriented. And in New Mexico, surgery is seldom used. And in Kentucky your most likely to be in the observation group.
This suggests to me that different areas have different areas of expertise. Los Angles would be distorted by the House Ear Institutes surgery expertise.
Again, the abstract has the most important message, which is, "Until there is clear evidence supporting one therapy over others, multidisciplinary consultation with a minimum of a neurotologist, neurosurgeon, and radiation oncologist or radiosurgeon should be offered in order to provide balanced counseling and accurate informed consent".
It would be nice to have a good method, but having three methods will drive surgeons and radiosurgeons to improve their outcomes as well as the increased interest in observation. (BTW, read an interesting paper by Battaglia et. al. from 2006 which has "control" rates of 87% for observation!) Nothing like competition to drive innovation. We've come a long way from one hundred years ago when 80% of surgery resulted in death to today's figures. What will the future hold?
(I assume Fig. 1 is the graphical representation of Table 5, but I could not get them to match. Not sure what is wrong.)