ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Outcomes of Cochlear implantation in early-deafened patients with Waardenburg syndrome: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory and speech outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with Waardenburg syndrome: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Waardenburg Syndrome Type 4 in Mongolian Children: Genetic and Clinical Characterization.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Editorial: Reviews in neuro-otology: highlighting recent advances in neuro-otology: new possibilities for future inquiries.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Approach for the Genetic Diagnosis of Patients with Waardenburg Syndrome.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Cochlear implantation in early-deafened patients with Waardenburg syndrome: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review aims to establish the expected hearing and speech outcomes following cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with profound congenital deafness secondary to Waardenburg syndrome (WS). Methods: A systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Databases searched: Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov. No limits were placed on language or year of publication. Results: Searches identified 186 abstracts and full texts. Of these, 16 studies met inclusion criteria reporting outcomes in 179 patients and at least 194 implants. Hearing outcomes of those receiving cochlear implantation were generally good. Five studies included genetic analysis of one or more of the participants. A total of 11 peri/post-operative complications were reported. The methodological quality of included studies was modest, mainly comprising noncontrolled case series with small cohort size. All studies were OCEBM grade III-IV. Conclusion: Cochlear implantation in congenitally deafened children with Waardenburg Syndrome is a well-established intervention as a method of auditory rehabilitation. Due to the uncommon nature of the condition, there is a lack of large-scale high-quality studies examining the use of cochlear implantation in this patient group. However, overall outcomes following implantation are positive with the majority of patients demonstrating improved audiometry, speech perception and speech intelligibility supporting its use in appropriately selected cases.
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.