ArticleHNO2025
[Speech development test for 2-year-olds (2;0-2;11 years)-evaluation of multicentric data of children after bilateral cochlear implant treatment : A retrospective longitudinal study].
Article in HNO, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-appropriate speech development is a primary aim of the rehabilitation of children treated with cochlear implants (CI). Various assessment tools are available, including the speech development test for 2‑year-olds (SETK-2). All tests are normalized to normal-hearing children; additionally, results are evaluated according to age and the duration of CI (hearing age). The present study presents current practices and evaluates them as far as is possible. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a multicentric retrospective study, 375 SETK‑2 datasets of congenitally deaf children treated with CI from five centers were included. All children had been treated before the fourth year of life, and the interval between treatment of the two sides was less than 12 months.
resultsIn the analyses according to age and hearing age, all subtests in the observed groups, with the exception of word comprehension, showed significantly worse results than the normative values. Isolated results demonstrated results similar to or even better than the normative values. The more complex the tested performance, the higher the proportion of conspicuous test results. The timepoint of implantation had no significant influence on test performance.
conclusionThe SETK‑2 should be evaluated according to chronological age; otherwise, the progress of early speech development may be incorrectly assessed and interventions initiated too late. Moreover, evaluation according to hearing age disregards the child's cognitive 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.