ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2025
The intersubject reliability of cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) in pediatric cochlear implant recipients: comparisons between acoustic and electrical stimulations.
Article in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials as Biomarkers of Auditory Maturation in Children with Cochlear Implants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Direct recording of electrically evoked cortical potentials from cochlear implants demonstrates feasibility and clinical relevance in pediatric users.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the intersubject reliability of cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) elicited by acoustic and electrical stimulations in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients.
methodsTwenty-two MED-EL CI recipients (aged 13-93 months) participated in this study. The acoustic CAEP (aCAEP) waveforms were elicited using four speech stimuli (/ba/, /m/, /g/, and /t/) presented at 65 dB SPL in a free-field condition. The electrical CAEP (eCAEP) responses were obtained by presenting electrical pulses through apical, medial, and basal electrodes. The aCAEP and eCAEP data (n = 28 ears) were analyzed using coefficient of variation (CV) and other appropriate statistics.
resultsP1, N1, and P2 peaks were observed in most of the children (92.9% response rate). The CV values were smaller for the latency metric (13.6-34.2%) relative to the amplitude metric (51.3-92.4%), and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The aCAEP yielded smaller mean CV values than the eCAEP (for both latency and amplitude measures), and the mean CV value for the aCAEP (15.6%) was found to be statistically different from that of the eCAEP (31.0%) for the P1 latency (p = 0.001).
conclusionThis study is the first to report the intersubject reliability of aCAEP and eCAEP in pediatric CI recipients. Overall, CAEP latencies were found to be more reliable than CAEP amplitudes, and the aCAEP testing demonstrated higher intersubject reliability compared to the eCAEP assessment. The present study's findings can be beneficial for researchers and clinicians in documenting CAEP in children who use CI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39572413What 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.