ReviewHNO2017
[Technical advancements in cochlear implants : State of the art].
Review in HNO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech recognition performance with dual-microphone audio processors in mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation is a safe method of hearing rehabilitation in adults.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 · 2023Article
- Cochlear Implantation in Hearing-Impaired Elderly: Clinical Challenges and Opportunities to Optimize Outcome.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Research Status and Future Development of Cochlear Reimplantation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
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
Twenty years ago, cochlear implants (CI) were indicated only in cases of profound hearing loss or complete deafness. While from today's perspective the technology was clumsy and provided patients with only limited speech comprehension in quiet scenarios, successive advances in CI technology and the consequent substantial hearing improvements over time have since then resulted in continuous relaxation of indication criteria toward residual hearing. While achievements in implant and processor electronics have been one key factor for the ever-improving hearing performance, development of electro-acoustic CI systems-together with atraumatic implantation concepts-has led to enormous improvements in patients with low-frequency residual hearing. Manufactures have designed special processors with integrated hearing aid components for this patient group, which are capable of conveying acoustic and electric stimulation. A further milestone in improvement of hearing in challenging listening environments was the adoption of signal enhancement algorithms and assistive listening devices from the hearing aid industry. This article gives an overview of the current state of the art in the abovementioned areas of CI technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28303288What 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.