Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34320523›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Evaluation of Remote Check: A Clinical Tool for Asynchronous Monitoring and Triage of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Saji Maruthurkkara, Sasha Case, Riaan Rottier

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05973669 (MED-EL Remote Care Multi-Center Feasibility Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05973669 nacompletednot on this map

MED-EL Remote Care Multi-Center Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMed-El CorporationRan2024 to 2026Enrolled53ConditionsHearing Loss, Sensorineural, Cochlear Implant, Cochlear Implant Recipients, Hearing DisordersArmsMED-EL Remote Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Remote monitoring in cochlear implant users: feasibility and reliability in adolescents.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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Personal experience with the remote check telehealth in cochlear implant users: from COVID-19 emergency to routine service.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 · 2023
    Article
  13. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric otolaryngology: a nationwide study.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2023
    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.

Saji MaruthurkkaraCochlear Limited, 1 University Ave Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Sasha Case
Riaan Rottier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA new Remote Check App permits remote self-testing of hearing function for Nucleus cochlear implant (CI) recipients and enables asynchronous review by their clinician to support patient-management decisions.

objectivesTo evaluate the Remote Check App for: (1) ease of use; (2) overall acceptance of the test battery by CI recipient or their carer in the home setting; (3) test-retest reliability of audiological threshold and speech recognition measures via wireless streaming; and (4) to compare outcomes from patient-driven measures with conventional clinician-driven measurements of aided-hearing function.

designSingle-site, prospective, repeated-measures cohort study with 32 experienced CI users (28 adults and 4 children).

methodsParticipants completed self-testing using the Remote Check app at home and in the clinic. Measures include audiological, objective and subjective tests. Self-administered speech recognition in noise, via the digit triplets test (DTT) and aided thresholds, via the aided threshold test (ATT) were reassessed in free-field and by clinicians following conventional clinical protocols. Results of ATT and DTT were compared across test conditions. Completion time and perceived ease of self-driven assessments were documented. Insights from subsequent real-world experience with Remote Check are summarized and compared to the study findings.

resultsRemote Check was rated as easy to use by the majority (87%) of subjects. Mean group test-retest score differences for self-administered testing within the clinic versus at-home environments were nonsignificant (p > 0.05): 1.4 dB (SD = 1.97) for ATT and 1.6 dB (SD = 1.54) for DTT. Mean group test-retest score difference for patient-driven DTT in streamed versus the free-field condition was 1.8 dB (SD = 2.02). Self-administered, streamed, ATT via Remote Check, resulted in significantly lower thresholds compared to clinician-driven warble-tone thresholds in the free-field by 6.7 dB (SD = 6.8) (p < 0.001). ATT thresholds via Remote Check were not significantly different from predicted thresholds based on the Threshold Sound Pressure Level of the sound processor.

conclusionRemote Check is the first CI telehealth assessment tool that uses wireless streaming to enable comprehensive, easy and reliable self-testing of hearing function by the CI recipient or their carer, in the comfort of their home. Asynchronous access to test results can assist clinicians in monitoring and triaging individuals for appropriate patient-management based on their needs. Use of remote monitoring may also help to reduce the burden of unnecessary clinic visits on clinic resources, patient travel time and associated costs. Remote Check is an important step toward addressing the current growing need for asynchronous audiological telepractice to support long-term care of CI recipients.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultChildCohort StudiesHumansProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsTriage

Identifiers

PMID34320523
PMCPMC8862779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.