ArticleCoDAS2024
Speech perception in patients submitted to cochlear reimplantation.
Article in CoDAS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the performance of auditory speech perception (PF) after cochlear implant (CI) replacement surgery and associations with age, times of use of the first CI, deprivation, recovery and use of the second device.
methodsThe retrospective study analyzed the medical records of 68 participants reimplanted from 1990 to 2016, and evaluated with PF performance tests, considering as a reference, the greater auditory capacity identified during the use of the first CI. Also analyzed were: Etiology of hearing loss; the reasons for the reimplantation; device brands; age range; sex; affected ear; age at first implant; time of use of the first CI, deprivation, recovery and use of the second device. The analyzes followed with the Chi-Square and Spearman, Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (CI=95%; p≤0.05; Software SPSS®.v22).
resultsMost were children with hearing loss due to idiopathic causes and meningitis. Abrupt stoppage of operation was the most common cause for device replacement. Most cases recovered and maintained or continued to progress in PF after reimplantation. Adults have the worst recovery capacity when compared to children and adolescents. The PF capacity showed a significant association (p≤0.05) with: age at first implant; time of use of the first and second CI.
conclusionPeriodic programming and replacement of the device when indicated are fundamental for the maintenance of auditory functions. Being young and having longer use of implants represent advantages for the development of speech perception skills.
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.