ArticleHNO2023
[Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants. German version].
Article in HNO, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- User satisfaction with cochlear implant audio processors: population norms derived from a large-scale survey campaign.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
backgroundPatients with a cochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for a new speech processor every 6 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades.
methodsSpeech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99 patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4 weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction.
resultsThe speech processor upgrade resulted in a significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7 percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dB signal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, a significant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006). A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified a proportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry.
conclusionThere was a significant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only a small improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.
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.