ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2024
The Audiological Profile and Rehabilitation of Patients with Incomplete Partition Type II and Large Vestibular Aqueducts.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of Auditory Performance in Cochlear Implants Using Machine Learning Methods: A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncomplete partition type II (IP-II) malformation is often accompanied by a large vestibular aqueduct (LVA). In IP anomalies, the patient's auditory rehabilitation requirements are decided according to the presence of inner ear structures and the degree of hearing loss (HL). There has been limited research on auditory rehabilitation (AR) requirement selection in patients diagnosed with IP-II and LVA. This study investigated the typical characteristics of HL and AR choices in patients diagnosed with IP-II and LVA.
methodsPatients with IP-II and LVA (n=55; 25 women and 30 men) were identified, and audiological evaluations were performed. The patient's demographic characteristics, the type and degree of HL, the AR method, age at diagnosis, and educational status were retrospectively compared.
resultsThe distribution of our 55 patients according to cochlear implants, hearing aids (HA), and bimodal applications was 29.1% (n=16), 43.6% (n=24), and 27.3% (n=15), respectively. Statistical analyses using chi-square tests found no significant differences in the incidence of dizziness/imbalance, tinnitus, HL progression, or the degree and onset of HL among the patients.
conclusionThe data revealed different audiological characteristics among patients with IP-II and LVA, as well as different AR solutions. The most widely used AR modality was found to be HA. Prediction of sudden versus progressive HL development among patients is challenging, and the characteristics of IP-II vary. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.
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.