Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32761385›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2021

Who are good adult candidates for cartilage conduction hearing aids?

Takanori Nishiyama, Naoki Oishi, Kaoru Ogawa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A novel auricular prosthesis which incorporates a cartilage conduction hearing aid based on 3D data processing technique: a preclinical evaluation.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 · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takanori NishiyamaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Naoki OishiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan. oishin@keio.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8204-9518
Kaoru OgawaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Keio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCartilage conduction hearing aids (CC-HAs) are novel hearing aids using the third hearing pathway of cartilage conduction. We assessed the efficacy of CC-HAs in adult hearing-loss patients who had various anatomical conditions of their ear canal(s) and determined who are good candidates for CC-HAs.

methodsPatients (n = 37) were categorised into three groups of participants based on ear canal anatomy: (1) canal stenosis; (2) abnormal canal; (3) normal canal. After a 1-month free trial of normal usage, CC-HA-aided and unaided hearing thresholds (43 fitted ears) were determined using standard audiograms, after which participants could choose to purchase the device or not. Group and subgroup purchase rates were calculated along with the purchase reason (or not). Subgroup binary analysis of purchase rates was done according to hearing loss severity (< 70 dB and ≥ 70 dB) of unaided average air conduction (AC) hearing thresholds.

resultsCC-HA provided hearing improvements in all frequencies within each group. Overall, 60.47% of participants purchased a CC-HA after the trial. Over 70% participants with canal stenosis purchased CC-HAs, regardless of their AC hearing thresholds (severe vs. mild), and significantly more mild-loss participants in the abnormal canal group purchased their trial CC-HA compared to severe-loss participants (85.71% vs. 20%).

conclusionAdult patients with ear canal stenosis or closure are the best candidates for CC-HAs, regardless of their hearing thresholds. Patients with more severe hearing loss accompanied by ear canal anomalies and patients with normal canal anatomy may not be good candidates.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsAdultAuditory ThresholdBone ConductionCartilageHearingHearing Loss, ConductiveHumansAdultCartilageEar canalHearing aidsHearing testsStenosis

Identifiers

PMID32761385
OpenAlexW3047140933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.