ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2025
Reduced Cochlear Implant Performance in Listeners with Single-Sided Deafness: Comparison with Bilateral Listeners.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Baseline Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates: Bilateral Traditional vs. Expanded Indications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe efficacy of the Cochlear Implant (CI) in listeners with single-sided deafness (SSD) was evaluated by comparing single-ear speech perception in SSD listeners and bilateral cochlear implant listeners (BCI).
methodsConsonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) speech perception scores for the CI-only ear in SSD listeners (N = 55; 36 female, 19 male) were compared to single-ear performance in age and device experience-matched BCI listeners (N = 55; 29 female, 26 male). Separate analyses examined: (1) a matched ear from the BCI listeners (for sequentially implanted BCI listeners, the first-implanted ear in sequential BCI listeners, or, for simultaneously implanted BCI listeners, the ear on the same side as the CI in the matching SSD listener), and (2) the lower-performing ear across BCI listeners. Additional models included moderators such as age, time since activation, CI usage, and etiology. A final analysis compared first and second implants for sequential BCI listeners.
resultsSSD listeners showed significantly lower CNC performance after controlling for age, time since activation, CI usage, and etiology. Sequential BCI listeners exhibited significantly lower CNC performance on their second ear, compared to their first ear.
conclusionSpeech perception with CIs is reduced in SSD listeners compared to BCI users, likely due to blocking, where the normal-hearing ear diminishes reliance on the CI. Lower performance in the second implanted ear of sequential BCI listeners also suggests greater reliance on the more experienced ear. These findings highlight the need for additional training, resources, and support to optimize CI performance in SSD listeners, despite prior evidence of positive CNC outcomes.
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.