ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2018
The development of active middle ear implants: A historical perspective and clinical outcomes.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
objective sEnergy emitting, active middle ear implants (aMEI) have taken more than two decades of research to reach technological sophistication, medical safety, and regulatory approval to become a powerful tool in treating sensorineural, conductive, and mixed hearing loss. The present review covers this era. DATA SOURCE: Literature found from searching Pubmed (MEDLINE); EMBASE, SciSearch, German Medical Science Journals and Meetings, and The Cochrane Library; and published as of February 2017. Study bibliographies were hand-searched to find further materials.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating the safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and subjective outcomes of partially implantable aMEIs. Data were extracted on systems with regulatory approval and summarized narratively. Meta-analyses were conducted for aMEIs with more than 25 publications. Study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal for quantitative data synthesis was carried out by two reviewers.
resultsFour hundred thirty-one studies included in narrative synthesis describe that albeit good audiological outcomes, clinical safety and (dis)investment are major barriers to continued market access. The synthesised risk of adverse events was three fold with the MET than with the VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE. With the latter system, audiological outcomes were stable and similar for all indications and age groups.
conclusionTo date, the majority of the literature covers the clinical application of the VIBRANT SOUNDBRIDGE system as it is applicable to a wide range of otologic and audiological conditions, particularly with the introduction of couplers to extend its clinical reach. The MAXUM and MET still have to find their way into surgical routine.Level of Evidence.
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.