ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
New validation of a well-known marker in cochlear implant infections: A retrospective, case-controlled, observational study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of Success in Revision Cochlear Implant Surgeries: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Patient, Surgical, and Radiological Factors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- New validation of a well-known marker in cochlear implant infections: A retrospective, case-controlled, observational study.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cochlear implant (CI) infection is the most common complication after CI surgery. We investigated whether the preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) values could predict the CI infection and the NLR and PLR values obtained at the first admission to the hospital with an CI infection could help the clinician in the diagnosis. Methods: This retrospective case-controlled study included 26 patients with postsurgical CI infection. To prevent age-related incompatibility in the blood analysis of the infected group, the patients were divided into three age groups: 0-4 years, 5-18 years, and over 18 years old. To compare the infected group, 29 patients who did not have implant infection after CI surgery and whose age ranges were compatible with the infected group were randomly selected from the hospital records as the control group. The infected group preimplantation (PREs) and postinfection (POSTi) NLR and PLR values were compared with each other and the control group values. The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values were calculated by ROC analysis. Results: The POSTi NLR values of the infected group patients aged 0-4 years and over 18 years were significantly greater than the PREs NLR values ( Conclusions: Preoperative NLR and PLR values cannot predict postoperative CI infection. However, NLR and PLR values increased significantly after CI infection, even if systemic symptoms did not occur. At the first admission to the hospital, NLR values can guide the clinician in diagnosing the CI infection in patients between 0 and 4 years and over 18 years.Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov Identifier:
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.