ArticleScientific reports2025
Accuracy assessment of a cochlear implant imaging tool using clinical computed tomography images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric factors.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Scalar position characteristics and translocation rates of different lateral wall electrodes within the cochlear basal turn: a cone beam computed tomography study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In today's clinical routine, imaging tools are increasingly used for cochlear implant surgical planning and assessment. However, low resolution and artifacts of computer tomography (CT) images often prevent a reliable assessment of the cochlea geometry, as well as introduced trauma from the surgery. This study evaluated the reliability of a cochlear implant imaging tool for evaluation of clinical CT scans. 20 sets of clinical pre- and postoperative CT images, implanted with Advanced Bionics SlimJ and Mid-Scala electrode arrays, were analyzed using fusion imaging, manual measurements, and the imaging tool. The compared outcomes included cochlea diameter and width, angular insertion depth, and electrode scalar location. Cochlea diameter (A) and width (B) demonstrated excellent and good inter-rater agreement between the imaging tool and manual measurements, respectively, while angular insertion depth and electrode scalar location showed excellent agreement. The imaging tool achieved an overall high accuracy of 96.9%, with a sensitivity of 83.0% and specificity of 98.3% for assessing the electrode scalar location. The imaging tool exhibited high accuracy and good to excellent agreement with other established assessment methods for clinical CTs. With its strong usability and fast evaluations, this evidence supports the tool's reliable use in clinical practice.
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.