Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36755736›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Patient perspectives on the need for improved hearing rehabilitation: A qualitative survey study of German cochlear implant users.

Victoria Hunniford, Robert Kühler, Bettina Wolf, Daniel Keppeler, Nicola Strenzke, Tobias Moser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria HunnifordInstitute for Auditory Neuroscience and InnerEarLab, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Robert KühlerDepartment of Otolaryngology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Bettina WolfInstitute for Auditory Neuroscience and InnerEarLab, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Daniel KeppelerInstitute for Auditory Neuroscience and InnerEarLab, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Nicola StrenzkeInstitute for Auditory Neuroscience and InnerEarLab, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Tobias MoserInstitute for Auditory Neuroscience and InnerEarLab, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DENanoscale Microscopy and Molecular Physiology of the Brain Cluster of Excellence 171 — DFG Research Center 103 · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The electrical cochlear implant (eCI) partially restores hearing in individuals affected by profound hearing impairment (HI) or deafness. However, the limited resolution of sound frequency coding with eCIs limits hearing in daily situations such as group conversations. Current research promises future improvements in hearing restoration which may involve gene therapy and optical stimulation of the auditory nerve, using optogenetics. Prior to the potential clinical translation of these technologies, it is critical that patients are engaged in order to align future research agendas and technological advancements with their needs. Methods: Here, we performed a survey study with hearing impaired, using an eCI as a means of hearing rehabilitation. We distributed a questionnaire to 180 adult patients from the University Medical Center Göttingen's Department of Otolaryngology who were actively using an eCI for 6 months or more during the time of the survey period. Questions revolved around patients needs, and willingness to accept hypothetical risks or drawbacks associated with an optical CI (oCI). Results: Eighty-one participants responded to the questionnaire; 68% were greater than 60 years of age and 26% had bilateral eCIs. Participants expressed a need for improving the performance beyond that experienced with their current eCI. Primarily, they desired improved speech comprehension in background noise, greater ability to appreciate music, and more natural sound impression. They expressed a willingness for engaging with new technologies for improved hearing restoration. Notably, participants were least concerned about hypothetically receiving a gene therapy necessary for the oCI implant; but expressed greater reluctance to hypothetically receiving an implant that had yet to be evaluated in a human clinical trial. Conclusion: This work provides a preliminary step in engaging patients in the development of a new technology that has the potential to address the limitations of electrical hearing rehabilitation.

Indexed as

cochlear implantgene therapyhearing rehabilitationoptogeneticssurvey studytranslational research

Identifiers

PMID36755736
PMCPMC9899842
OpenAlexW4317718092

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.