ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Is there a best side for cochlear implants in post-lingual patients?
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCochlear Implant is a sensory prosthesis capable of restoring hearing in patients with severe or profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
objectiveTo evaluate if there is a better side to be implanted in post-lingual patients.
methodsRetrospective longitudinal study. Participants were 40 subjects, of both sex, mean age of 47 years, with post-lingual hearing loss, users of unilateral cochlear implant for more than 12 months and less than 24 months, with asymmetric auditor reserve between the ears (difference of 10dBNA, In at least one of the frequencies with a response, between the ears), divided into two groups. Group A was composed of individuals with cochlear implant in the ear with better auditory reserve and Group B with auditory reserve lower in relation to the contralateral side.
resultsThere was no statistical difference for the tonal auditory threshold before and after cochlear implant. A better speech perception in pre-cochlear implant tests was present in B (20%), but the final results are similar in both groups.
conclusionThe cochlear implant in the ear with the worst auditory residue favors a bimodal hearing, which would allow the binaural summation, without compromising the improvement of the audiometric threshold and the speech perception.
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.