ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
Preliminary study to determine an optimal mode for favorable residual hearing at low frequencies: Full electrical stimulation, electric acoustic stimulation, and electrical complement.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preliminary study to determine an optimal mode for favorable residual hearing at low frequencies: Full electrical stimulation, electric acoustic stimulation, and electrical complement.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this prospective study, each subject experienced three modes electric acoustic stimulation (EAS), full electrical stimulation (FES), and electrical complement (EC), and the performance of each mode and subject preference were evaluated. Methods: Eight ears (seven patients) with successfully preserved residual hearing after cochlear implantation (CI) were included. EAS, FES, and EC programs were set up on each patient's device, and each mode was used for at least 1 h per day for a month. The Speech Intelligibility test, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, and the Hearing in Noise test (HINT) results in each stimulation mode. Results: The mean monosyllabic word score (EAS: 90.3 ± 4.0; FES: 81.2 ± 16.1) and the mean sentence score (EAS: 98.3 ± 1.7; FES: 95.0 ± 3.0) were significantly higher in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. The mean bisyllabic word score (EAS: 95.6 ± 5.6; EC: 90.1 ± 5.6) was higher in the EAS mode than in the EC mode. In HINT, the signal-to-noise ratios under the noise front (EAS: 4.7 ± 2.5; FES: 7.9 ± 4.4) and noise composite conditions (EAS: 4.2 ± 2.7; FES: 6.6 ± 4.0) were significantly smaller in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. After trials of the three modes, five subjects preferred EAS, one preferred EC, and two preferred FES. Conclusion: Among the three stimulation modes, EAS produced slightly better results, and subjects generally preferred EAS (five of seven patients, 71.4%). The use of hearing aids before CI was considered an important factor in mode preference. FES may be preferred when CI was performed at a young age and subjects had little experience with hearing aids. However, adults may prefer EC over EAS if there was little or no hearing-aid use before CI.
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.