ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2025
Cochlear Duct Length: Rethinking Its Role in Auditory Outcomes.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the relation between cochlear duct length (CDL) and audiological outcome after cochlear implant surgery in prelingually deafened children. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, 36 prelingually deaf children underwent cochlear implantation at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur. Preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and high-resolution T2 weighted sequences magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of temporal bones were used to calculate CDL. Patients were followed up for 12 months postoperatively with visits every three months for audiological scoring (infant-toddler meaningful auditory integration scale and revised central auditory processing scores). Results: Thirty-six candidates were included in the study. The mean CDL, as measured on temporal bone HRCT, was 32.72±1.278 mm, and, with MRI, was 33.4689±1.31. This study is suggestive of widely dispersed data (coefficient of variance <0.5), and hence, the hypothesis of "implantation in CDL close to 31.5 mm will give the best improvement in functional outcome scores" cannot be generalized. The improvement in functional outcome scores is likely attributable to other causes/multifactorial causation. Conclusion: We found no relationship between CDL and audiological outcomes post-cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children. Further research with larger sample sizes, prospective multicenter designs and extended follow-up periods is warranted to strengthen evidence in this area.
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.