Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39735240›Full record

ReviewJournal of otology2024

Investigating Additional Cochlear Parameters: A follow-up systematic review and meta-analysis.

Deven P Curtis, Anthony N Baumann, Natasha Salmen, Anita Jeyakumar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of otology, 2024. 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

4 authors.

Deven P CurtisNortheast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.
Anthony N BaumannNortheast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.
Natasha SalmenNortheast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.
Anita JeyakumarNortheast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The movement towards personalization of cochlear implantation has continued to generate interest about variabilities in cochlear size. In a recent meta-analysis, Atalay et al. (2022) examined organ of corti length, cochlear lateral wall, and "A" value and found that most covariates, other than congenital sensorineural hearing loss, did not impact cochlear size via these measurements. However, no meta-analysis exists on how patient-specific variables could impact other cochlear size measurements, such as cochlear height (CH), and "B" value (defined as the distance between opposite lateral walls and perpendicular to "A" value). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine how patient-specific variables impact additional cochlear size measurements to assist clinical decision-making. Databases reviewed: A systematic review for cochlear size measurements using PRISMA methodology was performed using PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE from database inception to October 1st, 2022. Methods: Search terms used included English, cochlea, size, histology, anatomy, and human. Inclusion criteria were measurements for human cochlea, full-text articles, and articles in English. Primary measurements were "B" value and CH, as these measurements differ from the recent meta-analysis on this topic. Cochlear duct length (CDL) was also included. A random-effects continuous model for meta-analysis was performed. Measurements were stratified by gender (male/female) and disease type (sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL)/conductive hearing loss (CHL)). Results: A total of 7 articles met final inclusion criteria from a total of 674 articles received on initial search, resulting in 2263 total human cochleae. There was a statistical difference between male CDL (n = 681 cochlea) compared to female CDL (n = 657) from four articles (p < 0.001; Cohen's d effect size (ES):0.421; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.171, 0.671). The frequency weighted mean for male CDL was 33.5 mm ± 1.8 mm and the frequency weighted mean for female CDL was 32.4 mm ± 1.5 mm with an unstandardized mean difference of 0.854 mm. There was no statistical difference between male "B" value (n = 329) and female "B" value (n = 349) for cochlea from two studies (p = 0.184; Cohen's d ES: 0.410; 95% CI: 0.194, 1.014). The frequency weighted mean for male "B" value was 6.5 mm ± 0.1 mm and the frequency weighted mean for female "B" value was 6.4 mm ± 0.1 mm with an unstandardized mean difference of 0.126 mm. There was no statistical difference between CH for SNHL (n = 282) and CHL (n = 275) from two studies (p = 0.486; ES: 0.085; 95% CI: 0.323, 0.153, F ig. 3). The frequency weighted mean for SNHL CH was 4.6 mm ± 0.8 mm and the frequency weighted mean for CHL CH was 4.3 mm ± 0.8 mm with an unstandardized mean difference of 0.032 mm. Conclusion: Male CDL is statistically larger than female CDL. There is no statistically significant association between gender or hearing loss type and "B" value or CH. The effect size for all comparisons is small, indicating little practical significance between any existing differences. The results of this study provide two additional cochlear metrics and indicate similar findings to the study by Atalay and colleagues as patient-specific characteristics appear to have no statistically significantly impact on cochlear size.

Identifiers

PMID39735240
PMCPMC11681789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.