SynthesisThe journal of international advanced otology2020
Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Superficial Siderosis: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.
Synthesis in The journal of international advanced otology, 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.
- Cochlear Implantation: A Treatment Approach of Hearing Loss in Superficial Siderosis.The journal of international advanced otology · 2025Article
- Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Mitochondrial Gene Mutation: Decline in Speech Perception in Retrospective Long-Term Follow-Up Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to establish outcomes following cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with superficial siderosis (SS). MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for this systematic review. No limits were placed on the language or the year of publication. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of a total of 46 studies, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria reporting outcomes in 38 patients. Of the 44 implants, 23 implants (52.27%) had good hearing outcomes at the last follow-up, 9 (20.45%) were initially beneficial for the patient, but then the performance deteriorated (4 of which were re-implanted), and 12 (27.27%) were not beneficial for the patient. All studies were classified as grade 4 studies using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system, being retrospective in nature and consisting of case reports and noncontrolled case series with a small number of patients. Of the 44 implants, 32 (72.73%) showed improved hearing outcomes following CI for SS at some point in time, of which 23 (52.2%) implants showed sustained benefit at the last follow-up (average follow-up time was 21.97 months). It is difficult to predict the longevity of benefit owing to the progressive nature of the disease or the patients in whom it may be beneficial, as the preoperative investigations inadequately predict benefit. Preimplantation and postimplantation counseling with the patient and their family regarding the potential limited benefit and eventual parallel decline with the neurological disease are crucial, along with thorough clinical investigations.
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.