ArticleCureus2021
Consistency of Using an Auditory Prosthesis Device Post a Sequentially Implanted Cochlear Implant: Data-Logging Evidence.
Article in Cureus, 2021. 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, 0 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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to explore: 1) the average use of each device in sequentially implanted cochlear implants; 2) whether the inter-implant duration between implants produced any significant difference in the average use of the second implant; and 3) whether wearing hearing aids before the implantation of the second cochlear implant affects its average use. Materials and methods The study included 20 participants with bilateral Nucleus 24 implants (Cochlear Corporation, Lone Tree, CO). Data regarding various variables were extracted and then analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results The pediatric group included 14 subjects (average age 7.5 years) while the adult group comprised six subjects (average age 37.5 years). The average use of the second device was 0.9 hours per day more than the first in the pediatric group while it was 1.22 hours per day more in the adult group. We also divided the subjects on the basis of duration between the first and second devices and calculated the average use of each device by them. There was no significant difference (p>0.05). The average use by subjects who did and did not use hearing aids before implantation was also insignificant (p>0.05). Conclusions No significant difference between the average use of the first and second implants, between the inter-implant duration of the first and second implants, the average use of the second implant, and between using hearing aids before the implantation of the second device and the average use was observed.
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.