ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2020
Changes in P1 latencies of children with normal hearing and those with cochlear implants
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials as Biomarkers of Auditory Maturation in Children with Cochlear Implants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validation of direct recording of electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials through a cochlear implant system.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The aim of this study was to determine the age-related latency interval of P1 latencies of children with normal hearing, and to evaluate the P1 latency changes after surgery in children who underwent cochlear implantation. Materials and methods: We evaluated 60 children with normal hearing and 16 children with cochlear implants aged 0–6 years using cortical auditory evoked potentials. P1 latencies were measured only once in the children with normal hearing, and on the postoperative first day, and the first, third, and sixth postoperative months in the children with cochlear implants. Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in the P1 latencies as the age increased in children with normal hearing (P < 0.001). It was determined that when the external partof the cochlear implant was applied, the P1 latencies of children with cochlear implants were significantly longer than those of age-matched children with normal hearing (P < 0.001). This difference disappeared in 10 children with implants at the third and sixth months, but significant differences remained in 6 children. Conclusion: P1 latency could be used as an objective tool to evaluate the normal development of auditory pathways, and may be helpful in the effective programming of children undergoing cochlear implantation.
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.