ArticleHNO2016
[The Heidelberg CI database module : Quality control in hearing restoration with cochlear implants].
Article in HNO, 2016. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochlear implants (CI) have been established as the therapy of choice for functional deafness. The number of CI-rehabilitated patients is continuously growing. The resulting data can provide important information for physicians, health insurance companies, and scientists. Assessment and structuring of data becomes more feasible with the application of modern database systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn collaboration with Innoforce Est., Liechtenstein, the authors developed a database module for the specific needs of CI patients. Data of 100 patients were included and evaluated. The main features of the module and an example data analysis are presented.
resultsAnalysis of data from these 100 patients reveals 50 men and 50 women aged between 1 and 87 years, with a maximum value in the 51-60-years age group. More than 50% of the patients were also severely hearing impaired in the contralateral ear and fitted the CI indication criteria. Functional deafness in the ear subsequently fitted with CI in most of the patients had arisen more than 20 years previously. Preoperative diagnostic electrical stimulation of the cochlear nerve was positive in 67 patients. All 100 patients perceived auditory sensations with the CI.
conclusionThe presented patient cohort is representative of patients at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Germany, and the demographic distribution is in accordance with the literature. The state of the contralateral ear, often also fitting the CI indication, is not surprising, as cochlear implantation is a comparatively new procedure. Preoperative electrical stimulation turned out not to be significant by itself. The hearing results and overview of complications were easy to calculate in comparison to a pure data storage system such as i.s.h.med.
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.