ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
The Chronological Evolution of Cochlear Implant Contraindications: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Assisted Compressed Sensing for Optimized Inner Ear Imaging: a Multi-Rater MRI Evaluation of CSAI T2-DRIVE.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Microsurgical Reconstruction of the Ear and Temporal Region: Structural and Functional Considerations Including Hearing Rehabilitation-A Narrative Review.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Evidence for the Necessity of Objective Hearing Tests in Cochlear Implantation Assessment: Excluding Functional Hearing Loss Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cochlear and Bone Conduction Implants in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Localization, Speech in Noise, and Quality of Life.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Determinants of Success in Revision Cochlear Implant Surgeries: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Patient, Surgical, and Radiological Factors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cochlear implantation has emerged as a transformative intervention in addressing profound hearing loss, offering a paradigm shift in auditory rehabilitation for individuals with restricted auditory function. Throughout its history, the understanding of contraindications for cochlear implant (CI) surgery has evolved significantly. This review comprehensively analyzes the chronological advancements in the understanding of CI contraindications, examining studies conducted from historical timelines to the present. Recent research has revealed significant developments in the field, prompting a reevaluation of established criteria and resulting in expanded indications for CI. The chronological evolution of contraindications underscores the transformative nature of the field, offering potential improvements in outcomes and enhancing the quality of life for individuals with profound hearing loss. In conclusion, this narrative review emphasizes the dynamic nature of the field, where the reevaluation of contraindications has created new opportunities and broader indications for CI. The emerging prospects, including improved outcomes and enhanced quality of life, hold promise for individuals with profound hearing loss.
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.