ReviewSeminars in hearing2021
The Limitations of FDA Criteria: Inconsistencies with Clinical Practice, Findings, and Adult Criteria as a Barrier to Pediatric Implantation.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Access to Cochlear Implantation: Trends in Surgeon Volume and Training.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- The Chronological Evolution of Cochlear Implant Contraindications: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Current Issues With Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Children: Etiology, Audiological Characteristics, and Treatment.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Congenital Cytomegalovirus and Hearing Loss: The State of the Art.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Younger Age at Cochlear Implant Activation Results in Improved Auditory Skill Development for Children With Congenital Deafness.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
- Conversations in Cochlear Implantation: The Inner Ear Therapy of Today.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Using Complex Networks in the Hearing Sciences.Ear and hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children require greater access to sound than adults as they are learning to communicate using hearing and spoken language. Yet when it comes to cochlear implant candidacy, currently approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for adults are much less restrictive than those for children, allowing for greater levels of residual hearing and aided speech recognition in adults. Cochlear implant guidelines for children have changed very little in the 30 years since cochlear implants have been approved for pediatrics, and this lack of change has proven to be a barrier to implantation. Using evidence-based practice, centers have been providing off-label implantation for children who fall outside of current FDA criteria, including children with more residual hearing, children with single-side deafness younger than 5 years, and infants with bilateral profound loss younger than 9 months. The purpose of this article is to outline how these restrictions impede access to implants for children and describe the evidence supporting cochlear implantation in children who fall outside of current criteria.
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.