Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28432874›Full record

ArticleHearing research2017

Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.

Rachel A Scheperle, Viral D Tejani, Julia K Omtvedt, Carolyn J Brown, Paul J Abbas, Marlan R Hansen, Bruce J Gantz, Jacob J Oleson, Marie V Ozanne

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04707885 (Clinical Utility of Residual Hearing in the Cochlear Implant Ear), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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.

NCT04707885 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Utility of Residual Hearing in the Cochlear Implant Ear

TypeinterventionalSponsorOhio State UniversityRan2021 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsHearing Loss, Sensorineural, Hearing Loss, Hearing Loss, BilateralArmsElectrocochleography
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Cochlear Implant Electrode Impedance in Standard and Dexamethasone-Eluting Electrode Arrays.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparative Analysis of Robotics-Assisted and Manual Insertions of Cochlear Implant Electrode Arrays.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Rachel A ScheperleDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: scheperler@montclair.edu.
Viral D TejaniDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: viral-tejani@uiowa.edu.
Julia K OmtvedtDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: julia-omtvedt@uiowa.edu.
Carolyn J BrownDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: carolyn-brown@uiowa.edu.
Paul J AbbasDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA; Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: paul-abbas@uiowa.edu.
Marlan R HansenDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: marlan-hansen@uiowa.edu.
Bruce J GantzDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: bruce-gantz@uiowa.edu.
Jacob J OlesonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: jacob-oleson@uiowa.edu.
Marie V OzanneDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. Electronic address: marie-ozanne@uiowa.edu.

Funding

Speech Production &LanguageP50DC000242 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Bob McMurray · 1989 to 2026
$58.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective review explores delayed-onset hearing loss in 85 individuals receiving cochlear implants designed to preserve acoustic hearing at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between 2001 and 2015. Repeated measures of unaided behavioral audiometric thresholds, electrode impedance, and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) amplitude growth functions were used to characterize longitudinal changes in auditory status. Participants were grouped into two primary categories according to changes in unaided behavioral thresholds: (1) stable hearing or symmetrical hearing loss and (2) delayed loss of hearing in the implanted ear. Thirty-eight percent of this sample presented with delayed-onset hearing loss of various degrees and rates of change. Neither array type nor insertion approach (round window or cochleostomy) had a significant effect on prevalence. Electrode impedance increased abruptly for many individuals exhibiting precipitous hearing loss; the increase was often transient. The impedance increases were significantly larger than the impedance changes observed for individuals with stable or symmetrical hearing loss. Moreover, the impedance changes were associated with changes in behavioral thresholds for individuals with a precipitous drop in behavioral thresholds. These findings suggest a change in the electrode environment coincident with the change in auditory status. Changes in ECAP thresholds, growth function slopes, and suprathreshold amplitudes were not correlated with changes in behavioral thresholds, suggesting that neural responsiveness in the region excited by the implant is relatively stable. Further exploration into etiology of delayed-onset hearing loss post implantation is needed, with particular interest in mechanisms associated with changes in the intracochlear environment.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionCochlear ImplantsHearingAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometryAuditory ThresholdCochlear ImplantationElectric ImpedanceElectric StimulationElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, AuditoryFemaleCochlear implantElectrically evoked compound action potentialElectrode impedanceHearing preservation

Identifiers

PMID28432874
PMCPMC6124313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.