ReviewHNO2017
[Preoperative auditory evaluation and postoperative follow-up in cochlear implantees : The role of objective measures].
Review in HNO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary diagnostic aim prior to cochlear implantation is establishment of a comprehensive and multidisciplinary diagnosis, in order to subsequently begin therapy as early as possible. Audiological evaluation prior to implantation employs a test battery-approach, including subjective and objective procedures. Objective measures show high reliability and therefore play a major role in the diagnosis of difficult-to-test subjects such as infants and young children. During postoperative follow-up, objective measures offer a valid method for analyzing the effects of different stimuli on the auditory system. Particularly in infants, children, and uncooperative patients, the results of these tests enable the speech processor settings to be optimized, the hearing benefit to be assessed, and treatment to be adapted accordingly. Auditory brainstem responses (ABR) offer an excellent test/retest and inter-/intrarater reliability and validity, and are the most commonly used method for objective hearing threshold estimation and evaluation of the functional integrity of the lower auditory pathway. The use of narrow-band stimuli allows frequency-specific threshold estimation; analysis of stationary auditory steady state potentials (ASSR) adds the advantages of automated objective detection. Electrocochleography and electrically evoked ABR give valuable information in special cases. The use of cortical potentials (CAEP) in response to speech stimuli is quite promising, although the high response variability currently limits this method's clinical application. An audiological test-battery approach combining the results of subjective and objective measures leads to significantly increased reliability of preoperative diagnosis and postoperative follow-up in cochlear implantees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27510227What 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.