ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Cost Benefit and Carbon Emission Saving Analysis of Remote Cochlear Implant Programming.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards sustainable healthcare in otorhinolaryngology: assessing knowledge, engagement, and opportunities for change.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Article
- Cost Benefit and Carbon Emission Saving Analysis of Remote Cochlear Implant Programming.The Laryngoscope · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the financial benefits and carbon emission savings associated with performing virtual-synchronous remote programming and troubleshooting following cochlear implant (CI) placement for patients who live in remote regions.
methodsCI users living ≥ 100 km from the implant center with ≥ 1 month CI experience were included. Participants were either assigned to home visits using a portable laptop (Remote Laptop; n = 20) or attended visits through the nearest Remote Hosted Site (n = 34). Direct costs in Canadian dollars from a Ministry of Health perspective and carbon emissions were compared between remote and in-person appointments at the implant center.
resultsMedian distances between participants' homes to the implant center were 574 km (Remote Laptop) and 999 km (Remote Hosted Site). Average costs for both groups of remote care were lower compared with in-person appointments at the implant center (Remote Laptop: $180.70 vs. $431.61, p = 0.002; Remote Hosted Site: $155.34 vs. $1110.89, p < 0.001). Total cost reductions were $5018.23 and $32,488.76 with cost-to-benefit ratios of 2.39 and 7.15 for Remote Laptop and Remote Hosted Site groups, respectively. Net carbon emission benefits were 2200.00 kg and 5691.50 kg with net carbon benefit ratios of 512.63 and 5.25 for Remote Laptop and Remote Hosted Site, respectively.
conclusionVirtual synchronous remote CI programming and troubleshooting generates cost savings in post-surgical care. Additionally, it achieves remarkable carbon emissions savings. More widespread adoption is expected, especially for those who reside far from implant centers.
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.