ArticleHNO2025
[Demand for remote care in cochlear implant aftercare].
Article in HNO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemote care (RC) opens up new possibilities in cochlea implant (CI) aftercare, such as real-time remote fittings, implant and speech processor checks, and hearing checks using smartphone apps. These applications offer CI recipients and clinics numerous options, but successful implementation in everyday life depends on various factors. To date, there have been few studies that have investigated the demand of RC on the part of CI recipients.
objectivesThe study analyses the demand for RC in CI aftercare from the perspective of CI recipients, regardless of the manufacturer. It demonstrates which aspects are important to the participants in CI aftercare, which arguments they cite for or against the use of RC, and which RC functions they would like to use.
methodsThe paper is based on a survey conducted at Hörzentrum Hagen Südwestfalen in December 2024 using a self-developed questionnaire. A total of 86 answers were evaluated.
resultsA total of 64.3% of respondents answered yes or rather yes to the question of whether they would use RC. In all, 82.6% fulfill the basic requirement for RC through regular smartphone use. The lack of personal contact is the strongest argument against the use of RC. However, the majority of respondents see an advantage in saving time.
conclusionOverall, the majority of respondents showed an interest in RC. Nevertheless, personal contact with specialized staff is still considered important. Interest in RC also decreases significantly with increasing age (p < 0.05). In the future, RC will be an innovative addition to conventional CI aftercare with on-site appointments, which will be in demand.
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.