ArticleTrends in hearing
A Prospective, Multicentre Case-Control Trial Examining Factors That Explain Variable Clinical Performance in Post Lingual Adult CI Recipients.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Interphase Gap Effect in Cochlear Implant Users: Biological Basis, Parameter Selection, Analytical Methods, and Quantitative Scales.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Article
- Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026Review
- Establishing reliable neural health measures in adult cochlear implant users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- The Failure Index as Marker of the Neural Health Profile in MED-EL CI Users: A Retrospective Analysis.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.