Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30374210›Full record

ReviewSeminars in hearing2018

Cochlear Implantation for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Lavin K Entwisle, Sarah E Warren, Jessica J Messersmith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in hearing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Usher Syndrome on the Island of Ireland: A Genotype-Phenotype Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Summary of experience in cochlear implantation surgery in Tibet and analysis of postoperative rehabilitation effect].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A nonsenseProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
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

3 authors.

Lavin K EntwisleDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.
Sarah E WarrenSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.
Jessica J MessersmithDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CIs) have proven to be a useful treatment option for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss by providing improved access to one's surrounding auditory environment. CIs differ from traditional acoustic amplification by providing information to the auditory system via electrical stimulation. Both postlingually deafened adults and prelingually deafened children can benefit from a CI; however, outcomes with a CI can vary. Numerous factors can impact performance outcomes with a CI. It is important for the audiologist to understand what factors might play a role and impact performance outcomes with a CI so that they can effectively counsel the recipient and their family, as well as establish appropriate and realistic expectations with a CI. This review article will discuss the CI candidacy process, CI programming and postoperative follow-up care, as well as considerations across the lifespan that may affect performance outcomes with a CI.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcochlear implant candidacycochlear implant outcomes

Identifiers

PMID30374210
PMCPMC6203457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.