ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Prognostic Value of Trial Round Window Stimulation for Selection of Candidates for Cochlear Implantation as Treatment for Tinnitus.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tinnitus Suppression with Electrical Stimulation at the Most Basal Contact of the Cochlear Implant Electrode as a Model for Round Window Stimulation.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024Article
- Case report: Can cochlear implant stimulation lead to improved balance even after vestibular neurectomy?Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Technological Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Tinnitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Conversations in Cochlear Implantation: The Inner Ear Therapy of Today.Biomolecules · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical stimulation with cochlear implants is able to significantly suppress the tinnitus sensations in 25-72% of implanted patients. Up to this point, no clear predictors for the effectiveness of tinnitus suppression with cochlear implants have been found and this substantially limits the possibility of the application of cochlear implants for this purpose. The objective of the study was to investigate if a trial electrical round window stimulation (RWS) could be used as a diagnostic tool for identifying candidates in whom electrical stimulation would be successful as treatment for tinnitus. Thirty-four patients with unilateral severe tinnitus and ipsilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss underwent a trial RWS under local anesthesia. Thirteen patients received a cochlear implant. All patients qualified for cochlear implantation on the basis of the trial RWS showed tinnitus suppression with the implant switched on. Complete or almost complete tinnitus suppression was obtained in 77% and partial in 23%. The mean tinnitus loudness reduction was 68% (VAS score reduction from 7.7 to 2.5). False negative results are estimated not to exceed 10-15%. We conclude that significant tinnitus suppression achieved during trial RWS under local anesthesia is a simple procedure allowing the efficient identification of candidates in whom electrical stimulation with a cochlear implant would be successful as treatment for intractable tinnitus.
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.