Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25276779›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2014

Electroacoustic stimulation: now and into the future.

S Irving, L Gillespie, R Richardson, D Rowe, J B Fallon, A K Wise

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Preclinical evaluation of a tool for insertion force measurements in cochlear implant surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Insertion trauma of a cochlear implant electrode array with Nitinol inlay.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2016
    Article
  13. Visualization, measurement and modelling of the cochlea using rotating midmodiolar slice planes.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S IrvingBionics Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia ; Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
L GillespieBionics Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia ; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
R RichardsonBionics Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia ; Department of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
D RoweDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
J B FallonBionics Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.
A K WiseBionics Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implants have provided hearing to hundreds of thousands of profoundly deaf people around the world. Recently, the eligibility criteria for cochlear implantation have been relaxed to include individuals who have some useful residual hearing. These recipients receive inputs from both electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). Implant recipients who can combine these hearing modalities demonstrate pronounced benefit in speech perception, listening in background noise, and music appreciation over implant recipients that rely on electrical stimulation alone. The mechanisms bestowing this benefit are unknown, but it is likely that interaction of the electric and acoustic signals in the auditory pathway plays a role. Protection of residual hearing both during and following cochlear implantation is critical for EAS. A number of surgical refinements have been implemented to protect residual hearing, and the development of hearing-protective drug and gene therapies is promising for EAS recipients. This review outlines the current field of EAS, with a focus on interactions that are observed between these modalities in animal models. It also outlines current trends in EAS surgery and gives an overview of the drug and gene therapies that are clinically translatable and may one day provide protection of residual hearing for cochlear implant recipients.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationCochlear ImplantationElectric StimulationGene Expression RegulationGenetic TherapyHearing LossHumans

Identifiers

PMID25276779
PMCPMC4168031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.