Trial reportJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2025
Speech Perception in Noise After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Results for Adults with Asymmetric Hearing Loss Who Receive a Cochlear Implant.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Extending the Indications of Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Single-Sided Deafness. A Comprehensive Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Neuronal mechanisms underlying binaural performance with cochlear implant in single-sided deafness: a [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The Role of Patient Motivation in Single-Sided Deafness: Patterns in Treatment Selection and Cochlear Implant Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cochlear and Bone Conduction Implants in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Localization, Speech in Noise, and Quality of Life.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Biomaterial-based drug delivery systems in the treatment of inner ear disorders.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: There is a lack of high level of evidence studies comparing the effect of different treatment options for single-sided deafness (SSD). Objective: To determine the effect of a cochlear implant (CI), bone conduction device (BCD), contralateral routing of signals hearing aid (CROS), and no treatment on speech perception in noise outcomes in patients with SSD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, adult patients with SSD were randomized into 3 groups: CI; a trial period with first a BCD on a headband and then a CROS; or a trial period with first a CROS and then a BCD on a headband. After the trial periods, patients opted for a BCD, CROS, or no treatment. Measurements were completed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. Data were collected from July 2014 to October 2021, and data were analyzed from December 2022 to May 2023. Interventions: CI, BCD then CROS, or CROS then BCD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the speech reception threshold in noise (SRTn), measured with speech and noise from the front (S0N0), speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe), and vice versa (SbeNpe). The secondary outcome was disease-specific quality of life (QOL). Results: Of 120 included patients, 60 (50.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at inclusion was 53.0 (12.1) years. At the start of follow-up, 28 patients received a CI, 25 a BCD, 34 a CROS, and 26 chose no treatment. At 24 months, the CI group had significantly better speech perception in noise scores than the BCD group (difference in SRTn: SbeNpe, -4.7 dB; 95% confidence interval, -6.6 to -3.0; SpeNbe, -2.2 dB; 95% confidence interval, -4.6 to -1.1), the CROS group (difference in SRTn: S0N0, -1.3 dB; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to -0.2; SbeNpe, -5.3 dB; 95% confidence interval, -6.0 to -3.1), and the no treatment group (difference in SRTn: SpeNbe, -6.3 dB; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to -4.9). Compared with the no treatment group, the BCD and CROS groups showed significantly better (difference in SRTn for SpeNbe, -4.1 dB [95% confidence interval, -5.2 to -1.5] and -4.1 dB [95% confidence interval, -6.1 to -3.3], respectively) or worse (difference for SbeNpe, 4.0 dB [95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 6.2] and 4.6 dB [95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 5.7], respectively) speech perception in noise. Self-reported speech perception abilities were significantly better for the CI group compared with the BCD, CROS, and no treatment groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the CI group outperformed the BCD, CROS, and no treatment groups in terms of speech perception in noise and disease-specific QOL in patients with SSD after 24 months of follow-up. These results indicate that patients with SSD can partially regain the advantages of binaural hearing after treatment. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4457.
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.