ArticleAudiology research2023
Comparative Analysis of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aid Users and Non-Users: An Investigative Study.
Article in Audiology research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Gel Application on the Transducer in Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids: A Case Series Study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Management of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids in Pediatric Patients.Audiology research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical findings on cartilage conduction hearing aids (CCHAs) have gradually become clear; however, few reports include a large number of cases. This study included 91 ears from 69 patients who underwent CCHA fitting in our hospital. Their ears were divided into six groups (i.e., bilateral aural atresia or severe canal stenosis, unilateral aural atresia or severe canal stenosis, chronic otitis media or chronic otitis externa with otorrhea, sensorineural hearing loss, mixed hearing loss, and conductive hearing loss) according to their clinical diagnosis and type of hearing loss. Most clinical diagnoses were aural atresia or meatal stenosis (bilateral, 21.8%; unilateral, 39.6%). The purchase rate of CCHAs was higher in the closed-ear group (bilateral, 77.3%; unilateral, 62.5%). In the bilateral closed-ear group, air conduction thresholds at 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz and aided thresholds with CCHAs at 4000 Hz were significantly lower in the purchase group than the non-purchase group. No significant difference was observed between the purchase and non-purchase groups in the unilateral closed-ear group. In the bilateral closed-ear group, air conduction thresholds and aided thresholds were associated with the purchase rate of CCHAs. In the unilateral closed-ear group, factors other than hearing might have affected the purchase rate of CCHAs.
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.