Trial reportBMJ open2018
Feasibility of personalised remote long-term follow-up of people with cochlear implants: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05973669 (MED-EL Remote Care Multi-Center Feasibility Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 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.
MED-EL Remote Care Multi-Center Feasibility Study
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote assessments for bone conduction hearing devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.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 · 2022Trial
- Effectiveness of Computer-Based Auditory Training for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Randomized Crossover Study.Trends in hearingTrial
- The role of perceived competence in remote cochlear implant aftercare: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- What to Measure? Development of a Core Outcome Set to Assess Remote Technologies for Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Feasibility of Self-Programming of the Speech Processor Via Remote Assistant Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for Remote cochlear implant management: A discrete choice experiment.PloS one · 2025Article
- Breaking Sound Barriers: Exploring Tele-Audiology's Impact on Hearing Healthcare.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Personal experience with the remote check telehealth in cochlear implant users: from COVID-19 emergency to routine service.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
- Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Telemedicine for Adults With Cochlear Implants in the United Kingdom (CHOICE): Protocol for a Prospective Interventional Multisite Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Current and future use of telemedicine in surgical clinics during and beyond COVID-19: A narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Home-Based Speech Perception Monitoring for Clinical Use With Cochlear Implant Users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Review
- Expanded use of teleservices in otology and neurotology in response to the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2) pandemic.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
- Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users.Hearing research · 2019Article
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSubstantial resources are required to provide lifelong postoperative care to people with cochlear implants. Most patients visit the clinic annually. We introduced a person-centred remote follow-up pathway, giving patients telemedicine tools to use at home so they would only visit the centre when intervention was required.
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of comparing a remote care pathway with the standard pathway in adults using cochlear implants.
designTwo-arm randomised controlled trial. Randomisation used a minimisation approach, controlling for potential confounding factors. Participant blinding was not possible, but baseline measures occurred before allocation.
settingUniversity of Southampton Auditory Implant Service: provider of National Health Service care.
participants60 adults who had used cochlear implants for at least 6 months.
interventionsControl group (n=30) followed usual care pathway.Remote care group (n=30) received care remotely for 6 months incorporating: home hearing in noise test, online support tool and self-adjustment of device (only 10 had compatible equipment).
main outcome measuresPrimary: change in patient activation; measured using the Patient Activation Measure.Secondary: change in hearing and quality of life; qualitative feedback from patients and clinicians.
resultsOne participant in the remote care group dropped out. The remote care group showed a greater increase in patient activation than the control group. Changes in hearing differed between the groups. The remote care group improved on the Triple Digit Test hearing test; the control group perceived their hearing was worse on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire. Quality of life remained unchanged in both groups. Patients and clinicians were generally positive about remote care tools and wanted to continue.
conclusionsAdults with cochlear implants were willing to be randomised and complied with the protocol. Personalised remote care for long-term follow-up is feasible and acceptable, leading to more empowered patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14644286.
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.