Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40576960›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

A Prospective, Multicentre Case-Control Trial Examining Factors That Explain Variable Clinical Performance in Post Lingual Adult CI Recipients.

Pam Dawson, Amanda Fullerton, Harish Krishnamoorthi, Kerrie Plant, Robert Cowan, Nadine Buczak, Christopher Long, Chris J James, Fergio Sismono, Andreas Büchner

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. 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. Article
  2. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    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

10 authors.

Pam DawsonCochlear Limited, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0009-0005-6125-2062
Amanda FullertonCochlear Limited, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2312-8026
Harish KrishnamoorthiCochlear Americas, Lone Tree, CO, USA.
Kerrie PlantCochlear Limited, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9891-2803
Robert CowanHEARnet Clinical Studies, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4841-9623
Nadine BuczakMedizinische Hochshule Hannover, Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany.
Christopher LongCochlear Americas, Lone Tree, CO, USA.
Chris J JamesCochlear France, SAS, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0273-5230
Fergio SismonoZAS Augustinus, European Institute for ORL-HNS, Antwerp, Belgium.
Andreas BüchnerMedizinische Hochshule Hannover, Hannover, Niedersachsen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated which of a range of factors could explain performance in two distinct groups of experienced, adult cochlear implant recipients differentiated by performance on words in quiet: 72 with poorer word scores versus 77 with better word scores. Tests measured the potential contribution of sound processor mapping, electrode placement, neural health, impedance, cognitive, and patient-related factors in predicting performance. A systematically measured sound processor MAP was compared to the subject's walk-in MAP. Electrode placement included modiolar distance, basal and apical insertion angle, and presence of scalar translocation. Neural health measurements included bipolar thresholds, polarity effect using asymmetrical pulses, and evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measures such as the interphase gap (IPG) effect, total refractory time, and panoramic ECAP. Impedance measurements included trans impedance matrix and four-point impedance. Cognitive tests comprised vocabulary ability, the Stroop test, and the Symbol Digits Modality Test. Performance was measured with words in quiet and sentence in noise tests and basic auditory sensitivity measures including phoneme discrimination in noise and quiet, amplitude modulation detection thresholds and quick spectral modulation detection. A range of predictor variables accounted for between 33% and 60% of the variability in performance outcomes. Multivariable regression analyses showed four key factors that were consistently predictive of poorer performance across several outcomes: substantially underfitted sound processor MAP thresholds, higher average bipolar thresholds, greater total refractory time, and greater IPG offset. Scalar translocation, cognitive variables, and other patient related factors were also significant predictors across more than one performance outcome.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedAuditory ThresholdCase-Control StudiesCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTongueTreatment Outcomecochlear implantcognitionelectrode placementneural healthpredictive factorssound processor mappingspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID40576960
PMCPMC12205208

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.