ArticleHNO2023
[Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear implant provision].
Article in HNO, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIf sufficient speech discrimination is no longer achieved with conventional hearing systems, an audiological indication for a cochlear implant (CI) is given. However, there are no established target criteria for CI aftercare with regard to the level of speech comprehension to be achieved. The aim of this study is to validate an existing predictive model for speech comprehension after CI provision. This is applied to different patient groups. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe prospective study included 124 postlingually deaf adults. The model is based on preoperative maximum monosyllabic recognition score, aided monosyllabic recognition score at 65 dB
resultsMean speech discrimination improved from 10% with hearing aid to 65% with CI after 6 months, with a statistically significant improvement in 93% of cases. Deterioration of aided unilateral speech discrimination was not observed. The mean prediction error was 11.5 percentage points in the cases with preoperative scores better than zero and 23.2 percentage points in all other cases.
conclusionCochlear implantation should also be considered in patients with moderately severe to severe hearing loss and insufficient speech discrimination with hearing aids. The model based on preoperatively measured data for predicting speech discrimination with CI can be used in preoperative consultation and in the context of postoperative quality assurance.
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.