ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Word Recognition with a Cochlear Implant in Relation to Prediction and Electrode Position.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Determining ideal electrode insertion depth in paediatric cochlear implantation.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing CI Systems for Better Recognition of Soft Speech -the Concept of Broad-Range Mapping.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- [Fitting of cochlear implant systems].HNO · 2025Review
- Article
- Factors to Describe the Outcome Characteristics of a CI Recipient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundthe word recognition score (WRS) achieved with cochlear implants (CIs) varies widely. To account for this, a predictive model was developed based on patients' age and their pre-operative WRS. This retrospective study aimed to find out whether the insertion depth of the nucleus lateral-wall electrode arrays contributes to the deviation of the CI-achieved WRS from the predicted WRS. MATERIALS AND
methodspatients with a pre-operative maximum WRS > 0 or a pure-tone audiogram ≥80 dB were included. The insertion depth was determined via digital volume tomography.
resultsfifty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. The median WRS achieved with the CI was 70%. The comparison of pre- and post-operative scores achieved with a hearing aid and a CI respectively in the aided condition showed a median improvement of 65 percentage points (pp). A total of 90% of the patients improved by at least 20 pp. The majority of patients reached or exceeded the prediction, with a median absolute error of 11 pp. No significant correlation was found between the deviation from the predicted WRS and the insertion depth.
conclusionsour data support a previously published model for the prediction of the WRS after cochlear implantation. For the lateral-wall electrode arrays evaluated, the insertion depth did not influence the WRS with a CI.
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.