Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625577›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2022

Conversations in Cochlear Implantation: The Inner Ear Therapy of Today.

Grant Rauterkus, Anne K Maxwell, Jacob B Kahane, Jennifer J Lentz, Moises A Arriaga

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Multicargo Porous Cochlear Electrode Coating for Antifibrosis After Cochlear Implantation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Grant RauterkusTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Anne K MaxwellDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Biocommunications, Division of Neurotology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Jacob B KahaneDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Biocommunications, Division of Neurotology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Jennifer J LentzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Biocommunications, Division of Neurotology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1681-4370
Moises A ArriagaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Biocommunications, Division of Neurotology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USOur Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center · USTulane University · US

Funding

Tracking & Evaluation CoreU54GM104940 · NIGMS · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI Peter Todd Katzmarzyk · 2012 to 2026
$69.1M
Multiphoton ConfocalP30GM103340 · NIGMS · LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER · PI SHELINE, CHRISTIAN THOMAS · 2012 to 2016
$5.1M
Antisense therapy for the treatment of visual loss in Usher syndromeR01EY030499 · NEI · LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER · PI KOENEKOOP, ROBERT, LENTZ, JENNIFER JEAN · 2019 to 2023
$1.7M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY030499NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM103340NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As biomolecular approaches for hearing restoration in profound sensorineural hearing loss evolve, they will be applied in conjunction with or instead of cochlear implants. An understanding of the current state-of-the-art of this technology, including its advantages, disadvantages, and its potential for delivering and interacting with biomolecular hearing restoration approaches, is helpful for designing modern hearing-restoration strategies. Cochlear implants (CI) have evolved over the last four decades to restore hearing more effectively, in more people, with diverse indications. This evolution has been driven by advances in technology, surgery, and healthcare delivery. Here, we offer a practical treatise on the state of cochlear implantation directed towards developing the next generation of inner ear therapeutics. We aim to capture and distill conversations ongoing in CI research, development, and clinical management. In this review, we discuss successes and physiological constraints of hearing with an implant, common surgical approaches and electrode arrays, new indications and outcome measures for implantation, and barriers to CI utilization. Additionally, we compare cochlear implantation with biomolecular and pharmacological approaches, consider strategies to combine these approaches, and identify unmet medical needs with cochlear implants. The strengths and weaknesses of modern implantation highlighted here can mark opportunities for continued progress or improvement in the design and delivery of the next generation of inner ear therapeutics.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsEar, InnerHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumanscochlear implantationhearing loss

Identifiers

PMID35625577
PMCPMC9138212
OpenAlexW4225162770

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.