ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2021
Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining treatment choices after the cochlear implant evaluation process.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetermine the proportion of patients starting the cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) process proceeding to cochlear implantation.Determine which patient factors are associated with undergoing cochlear implantation.
methodsRetrospective case series of all patients scheduled for a CIE within a tertiary academic neurotology practice between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2016. Management pathways of patients undergoing CIE were examined.
resultsTwo hundred thirty-seven adult patients were scheduled for CIE during the study period. Two hundred twenty-six patients started the evaluation process, and 203 patients completed full evaluation. Of patients that completed CIE, 166/203 (82%) met criteria for implantation and 37/203 (18%) did not meet criteria. Fifty-nine patients out of 166 patients (36%) meeting criteria did not receive implants and 107/166 (64%) underwent implantation, yielding an overall implantation rate of 47% (107/226) among patients scheduled for CIE. Common reasons for deferring CI among candidates included failure to show up for preoperative appointment (24%), choosing hearing aids as an alternative (22%), patient refusal (21%) and insurance issues (17%). Overall, CIE led to a new adjunctive hearing device (CI or hearing aid) in 113 (113/203, 56%) cases.
conclusionFifty-six (113/203) percent of patients who underwent CIE at an academic medical center underwent CI surgery or received an adjunctive hearing device, but 36% (59/166) of candidates did not receive a CI. Patients who forewent CI despite meeting candidacy criteria did so due to cost/insurance issues, or due to preference for auditory amplification rather than CI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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.