ReviewAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2020
Cochlear Implantation From the Perspective of Genetic Background.
Review in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Findings in Seven Cochlear Implanted Patients with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.Genes · 2026Article
- Etiology-Driven Personalized Cochlear Implantation: Implications for Electrode Choice, Timing, and Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Threshold-distance functions predict speech recognition with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Genotyped Subjects with Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- Article
- Detailed Clinical Features ofGenes · 2024Article
- Navigating the Usher Syndrome Genetic Landscape: An Evaluation of the Associations between Specific Genes and Quality Categories of Cochlear Implant Outcomes.Audiology research · 2024Review
- Spectrum of genetic variants in bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Autosomal Dominant Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss (DFNA): A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Addition of an affected family member to a previously ascertained autosomal recessive nonsyndromic hearing loss pedigree and systematic phenotype-genotype analysis of splice-site variants in MYO15A.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- The protective effects of systemic dexamethasone on sensory epithelial damage and hearing loss in targeted Cx26-null mice.Cell death & disease · 2022Article
- Searching for the Molecular Basis of Partial Deafness.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Variants in CDH23 cause a broad spectrum of hearing loss: from non-syndromic to syndromic hearing loss as well as from congenital to age-related hearing loss.Human genetics · 2022Article
- The genetic etiology of hearing loss in Japan revealed by the social health insurance-based genetic testing of 10K patients.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Systematic Literature Review of Hearing Preservation Rates in Cochlear Implantation Associated With Medium- and Longer-Length Flexible Lateral Wall Electrode Arrays.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- An online compendium of treatable genetic disorders.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2021Article
- Article
- Induced Short-Term Hearing Loss due to Stimulation of Age-Related Factors by Intermittent Hypoxia, High-Fat Diet, and Galactose Injection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- The Importance of Early Genetic Diagnostics of Hearing Loss in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
- Genotype-Phenotype Correlation for Predicting Cochlear Implant Outcome: Current Challenges and Opportunities.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While cochlear implantation (CI) technology has greatly improved over the past 40 years, one aspect of CI that continues to pose difficulties is the variability of outcomes due to numerous factors involved in postimplantation performance. The electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) system has expanded indications for CI to include patients with residual hearing, and is currently becoming a standard therapy for these patients. Genetic disorders are known to be the most common cause of congenital/early-onset sensorineural hearing loss, and are also involved in a considerable proportion of cases of late-onset hearing loss. There has been a great deal of progress in the identification of deafness genes over the last two decades. Currently, more than 100 genes have been reported to be associated with non-syndromic hearing loss. Patients possessing a variety of deafness gene mutations have achieved satisfactory auditory performance after CI/EAS, suggesting that identification of the genetic background facilitates prediction of post-CI/EAS performance. When the intra-cochlear etiology is associated with a specific genetic background, there is a potential for good CI performance. Thus, it is essential to determine which region of the cochlea is affected by identifying the responsible genes. This review summarizes the genetic background of the patients receiving CI/EAS, and introduces detailed clinical data and CI/EAS outcomes in representative examples. Anat Rec, 303:563-593, 2020. © 2020 The Authors. The Anatomical Record published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Anatomists.
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.