Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33388985›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

Variability of fitting parameters across cochlear implant centres.

Justine Wathour, Paul J Govaerts, Naïma Deggouj

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT03700268 (Programming Cochlear Implant With Artificial Intelligence), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT03700268 naunknown statusnot on this map

Programming Cochlear Implant With Artificial Intelligence

TypeinterventionalSponsorCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainRan2017 to 2021Enrolled30ConditionsDeafness, PerceptionArmsManual intervention to programme Cochlear Implant electrodes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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.

Justine WathourCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 100, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. justine.wathour@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2048-8053
Paul J GovaertsEargroup, Antwerpen-Deurne, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9519-9002
Naïma DeggoujCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 100, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs a follow-up to the studies by Vaerenberg et al. (Sci World J 501738:1-12, 2014) and Browning et al. (Cochlear Implant Int 21(3):1-13, 2020), who used questionnaires, we determined whether there are between-centre variations in the fitting of cochlear implants by analysing the methodology, fitting parameters and hearing results of patients from four centres with real data. The purpose of this study is to highlight the lack of streamlined mapping guides and outcome measures with respect to cochlear implant (CI) fittings.

methodsA retrospective study with ninety-seven post-lingual adults with a nucleus cochlear implant placed between 2003 and 2013 was included to ensure at least 5 years of follow-up. The studied data were as follows: the methodology, including the fitter's professional background, the method of activation, the sequence of fitting sessions, the objectives measures and hearing outcomes; and the fitting parameters, including the speech processors, programming strategy, stimulation mode, T and C levels, T-SPL and C-SPL, maxima, pulse width, loudness growth and hearing results.

resultsThis investigation highlights some common practices across professionals and CI centres: the activation of a CI is behavioural; impedances are systematically measured at each fitting; and some parameters are rarely modified. However, there are also differences, either between centres, such as the sequences of fitting sessions (p < 0.05) or their approach to spectral bands (p < 0.05), or even within centres, such as the policy regarding T and C levels at high frequencies compared to those at low and mid-frequencies.

conclusionThere are important variations between and within centres that reflect a lack of CI-related policies and outcome measures in the fitting of CI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT03700268.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultHearing TestsHumansProsthesis FittingRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33388985
OpenAlexW3121052103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.