ArticleHNO2019
[Auditory group therapy in adult cochlear implant rehabilitation].
Article in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Illness perceptions in cochlear implant users - a longitudinal study.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 · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAuditory training is an established intervention in adult cochlear implant (CI) aural rehabilitation. In most cases, training is implemented in an individual therapy setting. Increasing patient numbers and the associated time-economic and cost-related demands as well as psychosocial and communicative aspects support the use of aural group interventions.
objectivesThis study aimed 1) to describe concepts and contents of group interventions for adult CI users and 2) to present results of a questionnaire-based evaluation.
methodsGroup interventions have been offered at the CI Centre Erlangen CICERO for several years. In Auditory Training Groups, exercises have priority, while Thematic Group Workshops focus on psychosocial aspects and provide information for the participants. The Auditory Training Groups were evaluated based on a patient questionnaire. Additionally, the reliability of the questionnaire was analyzed.
resultsThe median overall satisfaction of CI users participating in Auditory Training Groups was rated as good. Training of speech perception in noise as well as communicative exchange are of great importance for CI users. They rated the therapeutic design as very good to good. Reliability analysis showed significant positive intercorrelations of the questionnaire items.
conclusionGroup interventions are well accepted by CI users and represent a useful complement to individual therapy during the rehabilitation process. As group interventions place special demands on patients and therapists, structured and well-proven concepts should be used in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31065763What 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.