Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34617890›Full record

ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2021

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Middle Ear and Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants.

Stephen E M Jones, Rujuta Roplekar-Bance, Richard Green, Caroline Rae, Aaron Ferguson, Patrick M Spielmann

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Long-Term Non-Users of Transcutaneous Auditory Implants: Thirty Years of Experience at a Single Institution.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen E M JonesDepartment of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Rujuta Roplekar-BanceDepartment of Otolaryngology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Richard GreenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Caroline RaeDepartment of Audiology, King's Cross Hospital, Clepington Road, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Aaron FergusonDepartment of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Patrick M SpielmannDepartment of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Ninewells Avenue, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Ninewells Hospital · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBKing's Cross Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study used questionnaires to examine the patient-reported satisfaction with 2 hearing implant devices to determine the level of overall satisfaction with the devices, which, if any, factors predicted good or poor perceived outcomes, or whether there were any specific aspects of the devices where dissatisfaction was apparent.

methodsA post-treatment questionnaire survey of 39 adult patients who had received a Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) or Bonebridge (BB) hearing implant, with at least 3 months of follow-up, was conducted using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Hearing Device Satisfaction Scale (HDSS). Satisfaction scores were compared to pre- and post-operative audiologic outcomes. The correlation between GBI and HDSS scores was also examined.

resultsA total of 28 of the 39 patients (72%) responded: 13 with a BB and 15 with a VSB at a mean of 13 months after implantation. The overall mean total GBI score was 30, with no significant differences across the groups. The responders generally reported that they were "satisfied" across most domains of the HDSS. In the study, 25 of the 28 responders were largely satisfied with their devices but 3 respondents were not. Two were known non-users, while one used the device but did not gain the benefit expected. It is instructive to note that all of these dissatisfied recipients were close to the manufacturer recommended limits for implantation of their respective devices at the time of surgery. Certain themes were identified within the patients' responses, indicating common aspects where satisfaction was poorer.

conclusionThis series of 28 implant recipients demonstrates high levels of satisfaction with implantable hearing devices across 2 different validated questionnaires. Implant teams could exercise caution and manage patient expectations if the patients are close to the recommended limits of a particular device.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsHearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-SensorineuralAdultBone ConductionEar, MiddleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34617890
PMCPMC8975422
OpenAlexW3202054552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.