ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2020
Comprehensive auditory rehabilitation in adults receiving cochlear implants: A pilot study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer-based Auditory Training in New Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Review of Training Outcomes in More than 100 Patients in the Outpatient Setting.Seminars in hearing · 2025Review
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward cochlear implants among deaf patients who received cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Systematic Review of Auditory Training Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Review
- Comprehensive auditory rehabilitation in adults receiving cochlear implants: A pilot study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn the United States, most adults who receive cochlear implants (CIs) do not undergo a comprehensive auditory rehabilitation (CAR) approach, which may result in suboptimal outcomes. The objectives of this pilot study were to demonstrate that a CAR approach incorporating auditory training (AT) by a speech-language pathologist (SLP) is feasible in adults receiving CIs and to explore whether this approach results in improved outcomes.
methodsTwenty-four postlingually deaf adult CI candidates were serially assigned to one of three groups: (a) a "CAR group" that received standard of care implantation, programming by an audiologist, an additional preoperative counseling session, and eight one-hour AT sessions; (b) a "passive control" standard-of-care group; and (c) an "active control" group that also received the extra preoperative counseling session. Participants were tested preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months after CI using measures of word and sentence recognition in quiet and in babble, as well as measures of quality of life (QOL).
resultsThe CAR approach was feasible, but this pilot study was underpowered to determine efficacy. Differential time courses of speech recognition improvement were seen for sentence and word recognition. All QOL measurements showed improvement from pre-CI to 1 month post-CI activation. Results revealed issues to consider for a larger-scale study of CAR revolving around participant selection, study measures, and sample size.
conclusionThe CAR approach is feasible in new CI users. A larger trial is needed to investigate whether CAR leads to better outcomes or faster improvement in this clinical population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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.