Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35937872›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Is Characteristic Frequency Limiting Real-Time Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation?

Amit Walia, Matthew A Shew, Shannon M Lefler, Dorina Kallogjeri, Cameron C Wick, Timothy A Holden, Nedim Durakovic, Amanda J Ortmann, Jacques A Herzog, Craig A Buchman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Identifying Slim Modiolar Electrode Tip Fold-Over With Intracochlear Electrocochleography.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amit WaliaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Matthew A ShewDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Shannon M LeflerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Dorina KallogjeriDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Cameron C WickDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Timothy A HoldenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Nedim DurakovicDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Amanda J OrtmannDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Jacques A HerzogDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Craig A BuchmanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

DEVELOPMENT OF CLINICIAN/RESEARCHERS IN ACADEMIC ENTT32DC000022 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PICCIRILLO, JAY F. · 1989 to 2022
$5.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Electrocochleography (ECochG) recordings during cochlear implantation have shown promise in estimating the impact on residual hearing. The purpose of the study was (1) to determine whether a 250-Hz stimulus is superior to 500-Hz in detecting residual hearing decrement and if so; (2) to evaluate whether crossing the 500-Hz tonotopic, characteristic frequency (CF) place partly explains the problems experienced using 500-Hz. Design: Multifrequency ECochG comprising an alternating, interleaved acoustic complex of 250- and 500-Hz stimuli was used to elicit cochlear microphonics (CMs) during insertion. The largest ECochG drops (≥30% reduction in CM) were identified. After insertion, ECochG responses were measured using the individual electrodes along the array for both 250- and 500-Hz stimuli. Univariate regression was used to predict whether 250- or 500-Hz CM drops explained low-frequency pure tone average (LFPTA; 125-, 250-, and 500-Hz) shift at 1-month post-activation. Postoperative CT scans were performed to evaluate cochlear size and angular insertion depth. Results: For perimodiolar insertions ( Conclusion: Using 250-Hz stimulus for ECochG feedback during implantation is more predictive of hearing preservation than 500-Hz. This is due to the electrode passing the 500-Hz CF during insertion which may be misidentified as intracochlear trauma; this is particularly important in subjects with smaller cochlear diameters and deeper insertions. Multifrequency ECochG can be used to differentiate between trauma and advancement of the apical electrode beyond the CF.

Indexed as

250 Hz vs. 500 Hzacoustic stimuluscharacteristic frequencycochlear implantationelectrocochleographyhearing preservationmultifrequency electrocochleography

Identifiers

PMID35937872
PMCPMC9354607
OpenAlexW4286698767

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.