ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2025
Participant valued appearance of bone conduction devices: a comparison between percutaneous and transcutaneous systems.
Article in 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, 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.
- Audiological Performance, Complications, and Compliance of the ADHEAR Bone Conduction Device in a Paediatric Patient Cohort.Audiology & neuro-otology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether the appearance of percutaneous bone conduction devices (perBCDs) or active transcutaneous bone conduction devices (atBCDs) is preferred by BCD-users and non-users. The second aim is to examine the degree to which the appearance of a device matters in comparison to other BCD traits, and whether certain participant characteristics predict this.
methodsAn online questionnaire was designed and administered to BCD-users and non-users (i.e., persons with no experience using a BCD). Pair-wise comparisons showing pictures of the latest generation perBCD and atBCD sound processors and implant sites were anonymously provided to participants, who could indicate their preference. Sum scores were calculated ranging from - 2 (strong preference for perBCD) to 2 (strong preference for atBCD). Means for the total score as well as sub scores of pictures showing either sound processor or implant site were calculated. Statements were presented in which the appearance of the device was weighed against other traits such as better hearing.
resultsThe study population consisted of 102 BCD-users and 105 non-users. An overall preference for perBCD sound processors was observed (mean score - 0.50 (95% CI: -0.63, -0.37). BCD-users had no preference for implant sites whilst non-users preferred atBCDs (-0.03 (-0.27, 0.21) and 0.60 (0.40, 0.80) respectively, p < 0.01). Most participants found better hearing more important than having an appealing device (n = 150, 73.0%).
conclusionsPerBCD sound processors were preferred over atBCD sound processors by both BCD-users and non-users. Functionality seems to be more important than the appearance of the device.
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.