ArticlePloS one2024
X-ray guided anatomy-based fitting: The validity of OTOPLAN.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Reading of Postoperative Cochlear Implant X-Rays.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Angular Insertion Depth for Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Analysis on Precision of CT, MRI, and x-Ray.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Towards a consensus on hearing and structure preservation in cochlear implantation surgery: results of the HEARRING international group survey.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Radiation-free cochlear implant position estimation in pediatric patients using impedance telemetry.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Personalizing Cochlear Implant Care in Single-Sided Deafness: A Distinct Paradigm from Bilateral Hearing Loss.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Pediatric cochlear implantation: The impact of frequency-to-place mismatch after a three-year follow-up.PloS one · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomy-based fitting (ABF) for cochlear implant users is a new era that seeks improved outcomes. Recently, different imaging modalities, such as plain X-rays, have been proposed to build the ABF as an alternative to the computed tomography (CT) scan. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and validity of OTOPLAN® software in building ABF using plain X-ray imaging. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective evaluation of postoperative CT scans and plain X-ray post-op images of 54 patients was analyzed using the OTOPLAN® software. The post-op analysis was done for the angular insertion depth (AID) and center frequency of each electrode contact using both imaging modalities. Moreover, inter-rater reliability was assessed for measurements obtained from CT scans and plain X-ray images.
resultsNon-significant statistical and clinical mismatches were detected when comparing the AID and center frequency measurements assessed using CT and X-rays. The absolute difference between CT and X-ray approaches ranged from 0.0 to 4.6 degrees for AID and 0.2 to 0.5 semitone for frequency. Moreover, the AID and the frequency measurements from CT and X-ray images demonstrated almost perfect agreement between the raters. The inter-observer reliability for CT scans showed that the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) exceeded 0.97 for AID and 0.95 for the frequency across all electrode contacts.
conclusionOur results demonstrated the validity and reliability of using post-operative X-ray images by OTOPLAN® software to build Anatomy-based Fitting maps.
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.