ArticleCureus2023
Exploration and Analysis of Cochlear Implant Content on Social Media.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Allergic Rhinitis Content Across Social Media Platforms.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- How reliable is youtube as a platform for cochlear implant information?Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Cochlear Implants and Adult Patient Experiences, Adaptation and Challenges: A Survey.Audiology research · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSocial media has an ever-growing presence in patients' lives, particularly with the dissemination of both useful and misleading information. We performed an exploration and analysis of content pertaining to cochlear implantation on a popular social media platform.
methods"Cochlear implant" (CI) was queried on TikTok in early October 2022 in a cross-sectional analysis. The 100 top videos were collected. Non-English and duplicate videos were excluded. Two independent researchers used the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN tool to score videos; higher ratings indicate increased quality and reliability. Demographic data were also recorded.
resultsOf the 100 videos assessed, 95 met the inclusion criteria. The average video had 2.36 million views, 328 thousand likes, and a duration of 36.1 seconds. The mean GQS was 1.91 (standard deviation (SD) 0.85), and the modified DISCERN score was 1.48 (SD 1.20). Posters were predominantly laypersons (93.7%), including CI users or parents of pediatric CI users. No videos featured audiologists or otolaryngologists. Nearly half of the videos (48.4%) discussed the experience of a patient or parent of a pediatric patient with CIs, and 24.2% were aimed at directly educating the viewers about CIs or the deaf community.
conclusionsMost videos featured CI users or families of pediatric CI users and detailed specific patient experiences. The deaf and CI communities have strong social media presences. Most videos had limited quality and reliability, measured via the GQS and modified DISCERN tool, and no videos featured hearing healthcare professionals, highlighting opportunities for clinicians to use the platform as a patient resource.
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.