ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
Identifying barriers and considerations for cochlear implantation in Amish children.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if barriers to cochlear implantation (CI) exist with respect to Amish children and to describe unique considerations associated with CI and subsequent otologic care in the Amish population.
methodsOut of all patients who underwent CI at a tertiary care pediatric hospital from 2008 to 2019, Amish children were age-matched to the remainder of the cohort to compare demographics and care-related metrics including etiology of hearing loss, age at time of initial hearing-related appointment and at CI, total number of pre- and post-operative audiologic and otologic appointments, and post-operative complications. Social considerations that may pose barriers to care were collected for descriptive analysis.
resultsSince 2008, 232 children underwent CI, of which 8 implants were performed on Amish children. Six (75%) Amish children underwent newborn hearing screening and 3(38%) were found to have syndromic etiology for hearing loss. While Amish patients had a lower number of both audiologic (15 vs 33.5, p<.001) and otologic (4.5 vs 8.5, p=.028) appointments when compared to age-matched controls, median age at the time of implantation for the whole sample was not different between groups (2.5 vs 2.0 years, p=.211). From a social standpoint, limitations in transportation, telephone communication, and ability to recharge processor batteries must be considered in the Amish population.
conclusionAmish children undergoing CI face unique barriers to care including transportation and technologic limitations, leading to overall fewer hearing-related appointments when compared to an age-matched cohort. Understanding societal differences is important to facilitate optimal care for Amish children with hearing loss.
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.