ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Electrical Bioimpedance-Based Monitoring of Intracochlear Tissue Changes After Cochlear Implantation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative spatiotemporal dynamics of access resistance, polarization impedance, and nested bipolar impedance in standard and dexamethasone-eluting electrode arrays.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Electrode impedance in cochlear implantation: determinants, dynamics, and clinical implications.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 · 2026Review
- Radiation-free cochlear implant position estimation in pediatric patients using impedance telemetry.BMC pediatrics · 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
backgroundThis study examined electrical bioimpedance as a biomarker for intracochlear tissue changes after cochlear implant surgery, comparing monopolar, three-point, and four-point impedance measurements over time and evaluating different measurement systems and approaches.
methodsImpedance measurements were obtained from 21 participants during surgery and at four postoperative stages. Monopolar impedances were recorded using the Bionic Ear Data Collection System (BEDCS) and the Active Insertion Monitoring (AIM) system. Three- and four-point impedances were recorded directly using BEDCS, and indirect three-point impedances were additionally derived from Electrical Field Imaging matrices recorded using BEDCS or AIM.
resultsThere was an 11% relative error between monopolar measurements from BEDCS and AIM and a 25% discrepancy between direct and indirect three-point measurements. Despite this, direct and indirect measurements from both systems were useful for tracking postoperative impedance shifts. Three- and four-point measurements showed a strong relationship both during and after surgery. Our results suggest that three- and four-point measurements are more specific than monopolar impedances in capturing localized tissue changes.
conclusionsThree- and four-point impedance measurements are potential markers of intracochlear tissue changes over time. While direct three-point impedance measurements offer higher accuracy, indirect measurements provide a feasible alternative for monitoring intracochlear changes in clinical settings lacking the option of direct measurements.
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.