SynthesisPloS one2025
Comparison of behind-the-ear vs. off-the-ear speech processors in cochlear implants: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improved Speech Recognition with Automated ForwardFocus in Cochlear Kanso 3 Sound Processor Users.Otology & neurotology open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochlear implants (CI) with off-the-ear (OTE) and behind-the-ear (BTE) speech processors differ in user experience and audiological performance, impacting speech perception, comfort, and satisfaction.
objectivesThis systematic review explores audiological outcomes (speech perception in quiet and noise) and non-audiological factors (device handling, comfort, cosmetics, overall satisfaction) of OTE and BTE speech processors in CI recipients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA-S guidelines, examining Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Data encompassed recipient characteristics, processor usage, speech perception, and non-audiological factors. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias by using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsNine studies involving 204 CI recipients, with a mean age of 49.01 years and 6.62 years of processor use, were included. Audiological results indicated comparable performance in quiet environments, with a slight preference for OTE in noisy conditions. For non-audiological factors, OTE processors excelled in comfort, handling, and aesthetics, leading to higher satisfaction. More data on medical complications and long-term implications is needed.
conclusionOTE processors may offer comparable performance to BTE processors in certain conditions, though not universally across all audiological outcomes. Interpretation depends on settings, processor generation, and testing paradigms. However, non-audiological factors might favour OTE. Understanding current literature may guide professionals in selecting suitable processors for CI recipients.
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.