ArticleInternational journal of audiology2025
Accuracy and variability in clinical predictions of speech recognition outcomes for cochlear implant users.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spectro-Temporal Modulation Sensitivity Prospectively Predicts Speech-in-Noise Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.Ear and hearing · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Relationship Between Electrical Dynamic Range and Speech Perception Outcomes in Experienced Post-Lingually Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Bicentric Study.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Clinical Perspectives on Cochlear Implantation in Pediatric Patients with Cochlear Nerve Aplasia or Hypoplasia.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Editorial: Changes in the auditory brain following deafness, cochlear implantation, and auditory training, volume III.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAn improvement in speech perception is a major well-documented benefit of cochlear implantation (CI), which is commonly discussed with CI candidates to set expectations. However, a large variability exists in speech perception outcomes. We evaluated the accuracy of clinical predictions of post-CI speech perception scores.
designIn an online survey, clinicians involved in CI care were asked to predict 6-month performance on AzBio sentences and CNC words for 15 anonymised CI patients based on demographic, medical, and audiological data, and preoperative speech recognition scores. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-five participants (72% audiologists, 14% neurotologists, 14% speech-language pathologists, and CI researchers) provided predictions for two or more cases, and 43 provided predictions for all 15 CI cases.
resultsClinical predictions had low accuracy and high variability (i.e. median interclass correlation coefficients [ICC] 0.11-0.13). No relationship was observed between clinicians' confidence and prediction accuracy.
conclusionsThe present findings are consistent with previous research and indicate a concerning discrepancy between clinical predictions and actual speech perception outcomes for adult post-lingual CI users. Future research may explore incorporating predictions based on statistical models into speech outcome prognostication to reduce variance and improve counselling and expectations setting for individual CI candidates.
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.