ReviewHNO2020
[Computer-based auditory training for hearing rehabilitation of adult cochlear implant users].
Review in HNO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Incorporating an Intelligent Tutoring System Into a Game-Based Auditory Rehabilitation Training for Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Algorithm-Based Hearing and Speech Therapy Rehabilitation after Cochlear Implantation.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigitalization has become a part of everyday life and digital applications offer an opportunity to promote health. In Germany, hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation (CI) typically takes place in specialized audiology centers. However, a variety of new auditory training programs have been developed and although most are for hearing aid users, some are suitable for CI patients. The purpose of this study is to give an overview of CBAT schedules and their effectiveness. MATERIALS AND
methodsCurrently available English and German CBAT programs for adult CI users identified in searches of Google, Google App Store, and Google Play Store were analyzed. A systematic literature search on studies dealing with CBAT in adult CI recipients from 2000 to 2019 was performed in PubMed, LIVIVO, and Google Scholar.
resultsGerman and English CBAT for adult hearing aid and CI users are generally intended to complement face-to-face therapies. The content of the programs differs primarily in terms of complexity and quantity of tasks, graphic design, allowed time and the device used. In contrast to the nine available German programs, some of the English CBAT include advanced concepts of adaptivity and feedback. Studies on the effectiveness of CBAT have mainly been conducted for the English versions and generally analyze only individual therapeutic subfunctions. All investigations show a short-term improvement of the auditory subfunction shortly after training. Unfortunately, the quality of the studies is low and follow-up results are only available in two cases.
conclusionCBAT programs might be an effective option for auditory rehabilitation in CI patients. However, suitable German-language programs conceived as an alternative to face-to-face training and studies on longterm effects of CBAT are still lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32647960What 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.