Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40126524›Full record

ArticleJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale

The Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Type on Hearing Preservation.

Matthew Zimmermann, Cathy Sucher

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Estimating Performance Using Tonotopic Measurements of Intracochlear Electrocochleography: Comparison of Lateral Wall and Perimodiolar Arrays.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Matthew ZimmermannEar Science Institute Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-3764-3499
Cathy SucherEar Science Institute Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare hearing preservation outcomes between lateral wall and perimodiolar electrode arrays for cochlear implant patients.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA large Western Australian cochlear implant clinicMethodsA total of 311 adult cochlear implant recipients (321 ears) implanted between 2017 and 2022 were included. Of these, 174 presented with postlingual hearing loss and preoperative functional low-frequency hearing. The change in low-frequency pure-tone average was assessed as the difference between preoperative to 3-, 6-, and 12-months postoperative measurements. Data were analyzed through linear mixed-effects modeling and one-way ANOVA.ResultsPreoperative low-frequency, pure-tone average was higher for those implanted with perimodiolar compared with lateral wall electrodes (

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsElectrodes, ImplantedHearingHearing LossAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Pure-ToneFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignRetrospective Studiescochlear implanthearing preservationlateral wall electrodeperimodiolar electroderesidual hearing

Identifiers

PMID40126524
PMCPMC11938487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.