Trial reportPloS one2021
Short-term outcomes of cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness compared to bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound hearing aids-Results of a Randomised controlled trial (CINGLE-trial).
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implantable hearing devices in clinical practice. Systematic review and consensus statements.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2024Pooled it
- Brazilian Society of Otology Task Force - bone-anchored hearing system - recommendations based on strength of evidence.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyGuideline
- Speech Perception in Noise After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Cognitive performance, dizziness and tinnitus among adults with unilateral audiovestibular disorders.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Influence of hearing in the non-implanted ear and age on long-term speech recognition benefit for adult cochlear implant users with asymmetric hearing loss.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparing Tinnitus Suppression in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Cochlear Versus Bone Conduction Implants.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Assessment of current patient reported outcome measures for three core outcome domains for single-sided deafness device intervention trials.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Cochlear and Bone Conduction Implants in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Localization, Speech in Noise, and Quality of Life.Audiology research · 2025Article
- The international expert consensus on management of external auditory canal carcinoma.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 · 2025Review
- Tinnitus reduction after active bone-conduction implantation in patients with single-sided deafness: a prospective multicenter study.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 · 2024Article
- Single-Sided Deafness and Hearing Rehabilitation Modalities: Contralateral Routing of Signal Devices, Bone Conduction Devices, and Cochlear Implants.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Tinnitus reduction in patients with single-sided deafness: the effect of cochlear implantation, bone conduction devices, and contralateral routing of sound hearing aids investigated in a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Masked Speech Perception with Bone Conduction Device, Contralateral Routing of Signals Hearing Aid, and Cochlear Implant Use in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness: A Prospective Hearing Device Comparison using a Unified Testing Framework.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2024Article
- A cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants for single sided deafness in adults and children in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2024Article
- Middle Ear Cholesteatoma and Vestibular Schwannoma Resection Followed by Cochlear Implant: Surgical Challenges and Audiological Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Quality of Life and Audiological Benefits in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users in Romania: Systematic Review and Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- [Intervention effects of bone conduction hearing aids in patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023Review
- QoL, CIs, QALYs, and Individualized Rehabilitation: The Clinical and Practical Benefits of Regularly Assessing the Quality of Life of Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of 'first BCD, then CROS'; trial period of 'first CROS, then BCD'. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial.
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.