ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Validation of Automatic Cochlear Measurements Using OTOPLAN
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key pre-operative CT parameters for cochlear implantation: a focused radiologic review with surgical relevance.Neuroradiology · 2026Review
- Etiology-Driven Personalized Cochlear Implantation: Implications for Electrode Choice, Timing, and Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction accuracy of cochlear implant electrode insertion using the OTOPLAN software.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Response to the letter to the editor regarding "Prediction accuracy of cochlear implant electrode insertion using the OTOPLAN software".European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Accuracy assessment of a cochlear implant imaging tool using clinical computed tomography images.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Perfecting Sensory Restoration and the Unmet Need for Personalized Medicine in Cochlear Implant Users: A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Automated segmentation of clinical CT scans of the cochlea and analysis of the cochlea's vertical profile.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Application of anatomy-based spacing of electrode contacts for achieving a uniform semitonal resolution: A novel concept in cochlear implant electrode design.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Otological Planning Software-OTOPLAN: A Narrative Literature Review.Audiology research · 2023Review
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
introductionElectrode length selection based on case-related cochlear parameters is becoming a standard pre-operative step for cochlear implantation. The manual measurement of the parameters is often time-consuming and may lead to inconsistencies. Our work aimed to evaluate a novel, automatic measurement method. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective evaluation of pre-operative HRCT images of 109 ears (56 patients) was conducted, using a development version of the OTOPLAN
resultsThe measurement time was reduced from approximately 7 min ± 2 (min) (manual) to 1 min (AUTO). Cochlear parameters in mm (mean ± SD) for R1, R2 and AUTO, respectively, were A-value: 9.00 ± 0.40, 8.98 ± 0.40 and 9.16 ± 0.36; B-value: 6.81 ± 0.34, 6.71 ± 0.35 and 6.70 ± 0.40; H-value: 3.98 ± 0.25, 3.85 ± 0.25 and 3.76 ± 0.22; and the mean CDLoc-length: 35.64 ± 1.70, 35.20 ± 1.71 and 35.47 ± 1.87. AUTO CDLOC measurements were not significantly different compared to R1 and R2 (H0: Rx CDLOC = AUTO CDLOC:
conclusionsWe observed excellent inter-rater reliability, a high agreement of outcomes, and reduced execution time using the AUTO method.
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.