Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27178980›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Personalised long-term follow-up of cochlear implant patients using remote care, compared with those on the standard care pathway: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Helen Cullington, Padraig Kitterick, Lisa DeBold, Mark Weal, Nicholas Clarke, Eva Newberry, Lisa Aubert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Personal experience with the remote check telehealth in cochlear implant users: from COVID-19 emergency to routine service.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 · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cochlear implant - state of the art.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017
    Review
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Helen CullingtonUniversity of Southampton Auditory Implant Service, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5093-2020
Padraig KitterickNational Institute for Health Research Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham, UK.
Lisa DeBoldCochlear Europe Ltd, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.
Mark WealUniversity of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science, Southampton, UK.
Nicholas ClarkeSouthampton Business School, Southampton, UK.
Eva NewberryService user, University of Southampton Auditory Implant Service, Southampton, UK.
Lisa AubertCochlear Europe Ltd, Addlestone, Surrey, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany resources are required to provide postoperative care to patients who receive a cochlear implant. The implant service commits to lifetime follow-up. The patient commits to regular adjustment and rehabilitation appointments in the first year and annual follow-up appointments thereafter. Offering remote follow-up may result in more stable hearing, reduced patient travel expense, time and disruption, more empowered patients, greater equality in service delivery and more freedom to optimise the allocation of clinic resources. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving 60 adults using cochlear implants with at least 6 months device experience in a 6-month clinical trial of remote care. This project will design, implement and evaluate a person-centred long-term follow-up pathway for people using cochlear implants offering a triple approach of remote and self-monitoring, self-adjustment of device and a personalised online support tool for home speech recognition testing, information, self-rehabilitation, advice, equipment training and troubleshooting. The main outcome measure is patient activation. Secondary outcomes are stability and quality of hearing, stability of quality of life, clinic resources, patient and clinician experience, and any adverse events associated with remote care. We will examine the acceptability of remote care to service users and clinicians, the willingness of participants to be randomised, and attrition rates. We will estimate numbers required to plan a fully powered RCT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from North West-Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (15/NW/0860) and the University of Southampton Research Governance Office (ERGO 15329).

resultsResults will be disseminated in the clinical and scientific communities and also to the patient population via peer-reviewed research publications both online and in print, conference and meeting presentations, posters, newsletter articles, website reports and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14644286; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisDeafnessFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeSelf CareTelerehabilitationOTOLARYNGOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID27178980
PMCPMC4874122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.