ArticleSaudi medical journal2020
Automated remote intraoperative cochlear implant device testing (CR220). Is it clinically efficient?
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A predictive equation for operative time estimation in cochlear implant surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical efficiency of the CR220 intraoperative remote assistant device used by the surgical team with that of the custom sound (CS) system used by an audiologist.
methodsThis was a prospective clinical study in a quaternary care center (King Abdullah Ear Specialist Centre) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between October 2018 and March 2019. We included adult and pediatric patients who underwent cochlear implant (CI) surgeries. For every participant, the intraoperative CI testing was performed via both the aforementioned methods. The time taken to complete the measurements with both approaches, including the time required by the audiologist to reach the operating room (OR) and to complete the test, was recorded.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the number of responding electrodes between the 2 approaches. For the 25 participants, the time taken for the measurements was 566 minutes with the CS and 173 with the CR220 systems. This significant difference indicates that considerable time can be saved.
conclusionThe CR220 enables intraoperative CI electrode tests and auto-NRT measurements. Its ergonomics and ease-of-use help the surgical team conduct the tests without an audiologist in the OR, resulting in the efficient use of clinical resources. Further, the results generated were consistent with those of the CS system.
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.