Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39658661›Full record

SynthesisEuropean 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

Hearing implants in pediatrics with cochlear nerve deficiency: an updated systematic review.

Asma Alahmadi, Yassin Abdelsamad, Nouf A AlAmari, Mohammed Y Alyousef, Murad Al-Momani, Fahad N Altamimi, Salman F Alhabib, Abdulrahman Hagr

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Asma AlahmadiKing Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC), College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6603-1596
Yassin AbdelsamadResearch Department, MED-EL GmbH, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8281-5825
Nouf A AlAmariOtolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed Y AlyousefOtolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Mohammedalyousef@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3221-1238
Murad Al-MomaniDepartment of ENT, Faculty of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad N AltamimiDeparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Salman F AlhabibKing Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC), College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2646-0393
Abdulrahman HagrKing Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC), College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3561-6791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCochlear nerve deficiency (CND) accounts for about one-third of congenital hearing loss cases and presents several challenges during management. Currently, cochlear implant (CI) and auditory brainstem implants (ABI) represent the primary management options for CND. However, robust evidence on the outcomes of different CND management approaches remains limited. Therefore, this systematic review seeks to update and assess the effectiveness of various CND management approaches. DATABASES REVIEWED: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases.

methodsWe conducted an online bibliographic search across these databases. We included both interventional and observational studies evaluating CND management outcomes.

resultsOf the 25 studies included, there were retrospective chart reviews, prospective observational studies, and one phase I clinical trial. Most studies focused on children with cochlear nerve aplasia or hypoplasia, with one study including patients with CHARGE syndrome. The mean age at the time of operation ranged from 0.5 to 4.5 years. Tools like the categories of auditory performance (CAP), speech intelligibility rating (SIR), and speech perception category (SPC) were commonly employed. CI outcomes were reported in 17 studies, while ABI outcomes were reported in 4 studies. The study found that the outcomes of both interventions were variable across the included studies.

conclusionWhile CI is feasible and an option in children with CND, its overall effectiveness is limited in some cases like cochlear nerve aplasia. Conversely, ABI appears to be a promising alternative with better auditory, speech, and learning outcomes.

Indexed as

Auditory Brain Stem ImplantsCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochlear NerveChild, PreschoolHumansInfantSpeech PerceptionAuditory brainstem implantCochlear implantCochlear nerve deficiencyCochleovestibular nerve

Identifiers

PMID39658661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.