ReviewSeminars in hearing2021
Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Adults: Limitations, Expansions, and Opportunities for Improvement.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- ChatGPT vs. multidisciplinary team decisions in auditory implantation: a concordance analysis of implant type and side selection.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 · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Extended Indications for Cochlear Implantation Beyond Conventional Criteria.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Intraoperative TransImpedance Matrix Recordings Compared With X-ray Imaging in Detecting Perimodiolar Cochlear Implant Tip Foldovers: A Multicenter Study.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025Article
- What Do People Want to Know About Cochlear Implants: A Google Analytic Study.The Laryngoscope · 2025Observational
- Individual control of input rate improves recall of spoken discourse by adult users of cochlear implants: An exploratory study.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Sensory-substitution based sound perception using a spinal computer-brain interface.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- On the Design, Fabrication, and Characterization of a Novel Thin-Film Electrode Array for Use in Cochlear Implants.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Hebrew Digits in Noise (DIN) Test in Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners.Audiology research · 2024Article
- First clinical implementation of insertion force measurement in cochlear implantation surgery.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Cochlear implant electrode design for safe and effective treatment.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Cochlear Implantation in the Elderly: Speech Performance, Associated Factor, Complication, and Surgical Safety.Journal of audiology & otology · 2023Article
- Acoustic Change Complex Recorded in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.Audiology & neuro-otology · 2023Article
- Robotized Cochlear Implantation under Fluoroscopy: A Preliminary Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- An optically-guided cochlear implant sheath for real-time monitoring of electrode insertion into the human cochlea.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The safety, efficacy, and success of cochlear implants (CIs) are well established and have led to changes in criteria used by clinicians to determine who should receive a CI. Such changes in clinical decision-making have out-paced the slower-occurring changes that have taken place with regulatory bodies' and insurers' indications. We review the historical development of indications for CIs, including those of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. We report on expansion to include patients with greater residual hearing, such as those who receive Hybrid and EAS devices, and report on recent FDA approvals that place less emphasis on the patient's best-aided condition and greater emphasis on the ear to be treated. This includes expansion of CIs to patients with single-side deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. We review changes in the test materials used to determine candidacy, including transition from sentences in quiet to sentences in noise to the recent use of monosyllabic words and cognitive screening measures. Importantly, we discuss the recent trend to recommend CIs despite a patient not meeting FDA or insurers' indications (a practice known as "off-label"), which serves as attestation that current indications need to be updated.
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.