ReviewCureus2023
The 100 Most-Cited Manuscripts in Hearing Implants: A Bibliometrics Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of the study was to characterise the most frequently cited articles on the topic of hearing implants. A systematic search was carried out using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection database. Eligibility criteria restricted the results to primary studies and reviews published from 1970 to 2022 in English dealing primarily with hearing implants. Data including the authors, year of publication, journal, country of origin, number of citations and average number of citations per year were extracted, as well as the impact factors and five-year impact factor of journals publishing the articles. The top 100 papers were published across 23 journals and were cited 23,139 times. The most-cited and influential article describes the first use of the continuous interleaved sampling (CIS) strategy utilised in all modern cochlear implants. More than half of the studies on the list were produced by authors from the United States, and the Ear and Hearing journal had both the greatest number of articles and the greatest number of total citations. To conclude, this research serves as a guide to the most influential articles on the topic of hearing implants, although bibliometric analyses mainly focus on citations. The most-cited article was an influential description of CIS.
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.