Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37773060›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2023

Evaluation of CI electrode position from imaging: comparison of an automated technique with the established manual method.

Alexander Mewes, Christopher Bennett, Jan Dambon, Goetz Brademann, Matthias Hey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. A systematic review of electrode array scalar dislocation after cochlear implant surgery.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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Cochlear integrity and scalar translocation assessment after cochlear implantation based on three-dimensional anatomical reconstructions.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 · 2026
    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.

Alexander MewesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany. alexander.mewes@uksh.de.
Christopher BennettCochlear Ltd., Sydney, Australia.
Jan DambonDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Goetz BrademannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Matthias HeyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein (UKSH), Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA manual evaluation of the CI electrode position from CT and DVT scans may be affected by diagnostic errors due to cognitive biases. The aim of this study was to compare the CI electrode localization using an automated method (image-guided cochlear implant programming, IGCIP) with the clinically established manual method.

methodsThis prospective experimental study was conducted on a dataset comprising N=50 subjects undergoing cochlear implantation with a Nucleus® CI532 or CI632 Slim Modiolar electrode. Scalar localization, electrode-to-modiolar axis distances (EMD) and angular insertion depth (aDOI) were compared between the automated IGCIP tool and the manual method. Two raters made the manual measurements, and the interrater reliability (±1.96·SD) was determined as the reference for the method comparison. The method comparison was performed using a correlation analysis and a Bland-Altman analysis.

resultsConcerning the scalar localization, all electrodes were localized both manually and automatically in the scala tympani. The interrater differences ranged between ±0.2 mm (EMD) and ±10° (aDOI). There was a bias between the automatic and manual method in measuring both localization parameters, which on the one hand was smaller than the interrater variations. On the other hand, this bias depended on the magnitude of the EMD respectively aDOI. A post-hoc analysis revealed that the deviations between the methods were likely due to a different selection of mid-modiolar axis.

conclusionsThe IGCIP is a promising tool for automated processing of CT and DVT scans and has useful functionality such as being able to segment the cochlear using post-operative scans. When measuring EMD, the IGCIP tool is superior to the manual method because the smallest possible distance to the axis is determined depending on the cochlear turn, whereas the manual method selects the helicotrema as the reference point rigidly. Functionality to deal with motion artifacts and measurements of aDOI according to the consensus approach are necessary, otherwise the IGCIP is not unrestrictedly ready for clinical use.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochleaHumansProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedaDOI; imagingAngular depth of insertionCochlear implantElectrode localizationElectrode-to-modiolus-distanceEMDIGCIP

Identifiers

PMID37773060
PMCPMC10543862

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.