Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37665345›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2024

The relation between cochlear implant programming levels and speech perception performance in post-lingually deafened adults: a data-driven approach.

Enrico Migliorini, Bastiaan van Dijk, Birgit Philips, Emmanuel Mylanus, Wendy Huinck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Enrico MiglioriniCochlear Technology Centre Belgium, Mechelen, Belgium. emigliorini@cochlear.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0123-5947
Bastiaan van DijkCochlear Benelux NV, Mechelen, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1864-2816
Birgit PhilipsCochlear Technology Centre Belgium, Mechelen, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7506-8868
Emmanuel MylanusDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7933-9995
Wendy HuinckDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-4657

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 860718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProgramming a cochlear implant (fitting) is an essential part of a user's post-implantation journey, defining how sound will be translated into electrical stimulation and aiming to provide optimal speech perception outcomes. Currently, there are no established, evidence-based guidelines for fitting cochlear implant users, leading to a high degree of variability in fitting practices, users' parameters, and probably outcomes. In this study a data-driven approach is used to retrospectively investigate the relation between cochlear implant fitting parameters and speech perception outcomes in post-lingually deafened adults.

methods298 data points corresponding to fitting parameters and speech audiometry test results for the same number of adult, post-lingually deafened, experienced CI users were analyzed. Correlation analysis was performed, after which parameters from the top-scoring and bottom-scoring tertiles were compared via the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon u test.

resultsWeak correlations between dynamic range and speech audiometry outcomes were identified, having p values lower than (albeit close to) 0.05. A significant (p < 0.05) difference in electrical dynamic range (the difference between the minimum and maximum amount of current which may be delivered by each electrode) was found, with top-scoring subjects having on average a wider dynamic range.

conclusionThe association between dynamic range and speech perception outcomes shown in this retrospective study highlights the need for deeper investigation into evidence-driven fitting. It might be a first step in the direction of evidence-based fitting, minimizing variability in outcomes for cochlear implant users and helping mitigate the issue of unexplained low performance.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessSpeech PerceptionAdultHumansRetrospective StudiesCochlear implantsDeafnessProsthetics fittingRetrospectiveSpeech perception

Identifiers

PMID37665345
PMCPMC10858098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.