Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35081198›Full record

SynthesisCoDAS2022

Frequency-Following Response (FFR) in cochlear implant users: a systematic review of acquisition parameters, analysis, and outcomes.

Leonardo Gleygson Angelo Venâncio, Mariana de Carvalho Leal, Laís Cristine Delgado da Hora, Silvana Maria Sobral Griz, Lilian Ferreira Muniz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CoDAS, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Leonardo Gleygson Angelo VenâncioPrograma de Pós-graduação em Saúde da Comunicação Humana, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE - Recife (PE), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1971-755X
Mariana de Carvalho LealPrograma de Pós-graduação em Saúde da Comunicação Humana, Departamento de Cirurgia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE - Recife (PE), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1472-9586
Laís Cristine Delgado da HoraPrograma de Pós-graduação em Saúde da Comunicação Humana, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE - Recife (PE), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7400-7641
Silvana Maria Sobral GrizPrograma de Pós-graduação em Saúde da Comunicação Humana, Departamento de Fonoaudiologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE - Recife (PE), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6759-5964
Lilian Ferreira MunizPrograma de Pós-graduação em Saúde da Comunicação Humana, Departamento de Fonoaudiologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE - Recife (PE), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0450-4148

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo characterize the acquisition parameters, analysis, and results of the frequency-following response (FFR) in cochlear implant users. RESEARCH STRATEGIES: The search was conducted in Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Ovid Technologies, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and gray literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies on FFR in cochlear implant users or that compared them with normal-hearing people, with no restriction of age, were included. Secondary and experimental studies were excluded. There was no restriction of language or year of publication. DATA ANALYSIS: The data were analyzed and reported according to the stages in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), 2020. The methodological quality was analyzed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Divergences were solved by a third researcher.

resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one study was comparative, whose control group comprised normal-hearing people. The variations in acquisition parameters were common and the analysis predominantly approached the time domain. Cochlear implant users had different FFR results from those of normal-hearing people, considering the existing literature. Most articles had low methodological quality.

conclusionThere is no standardized FFR acquisition and analysis protocol for cochlear implant users. The results have a high risk of bias.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialCross-Sectional StudiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID35081198
PMCPMC9886122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.