ReviewAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2025
Treating Hearing Loss: From Cochlear Implantation to Gene Therapy.
Review in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rescue of stereocilia architecture and hearing function by AAV-CIB2 and AAV-CIB3 in a mouse model of recessive deafness DFNB48.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026Article
- Characteristics and Cell Lineage Tracing of Neurod1-Cre and Neurod1-iCreER Mice Targeting Cochlear Neurons.Neuroscience bulletin · 2026Article
- Using Electrospinning Technique for Rapid Preparation of BDNF-Releasing Electrode Array of Cochlear Implant: An In Vitro Study.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Genetic and Environmental Factors Shaping Hearing Loss: Xenobiotics, Mechanisms and Translational Perspectives.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Review
- Engineered Inner Ear Drug Delivery Systems for Hearing Loss Treatment.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- Treating Hearing Loss: From Cochlear Implantation to Gene Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gene therapy has recently restored natural audibility in humans with OTOF-gene mutations. This biological restoration of hearing is different from cochlear implantation (CI) that produces artificial hearing via electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. In three published trials, 21 DFNB9 patients show 244 grade I/II adverse events (AEs), 2 grade III AEs and no serious AEs. The average gene therapy effect is substantial (52.4-dB improvement from baseline complete deafness), rapid (0.74-month time constant), and stable over the initial six months. However, individual outcomes vary from restored normal audibility (≤20 dB HL) to severe hearing loss (≥80 dB HL). Here critical knowledge gaps in gene therapy are identified such as understanding the individual variability, assessing temporal processing, and comparing efficacy with cochlear implantation. It is predicted that gene therapy will include patients with less than complete hearing loss and target other monogenic forms of congenital deafness. Advanced technologies in minimally invasive drug delivery and gene editing will further increase the safety, efficacy and applicability of gene therapy for hearing loss. Cochlear implantation likely remains the standard intervention for severe-to-profound hearing loss, but gene therapy will emerge as a viable alternative in treating monogenic forms of deafness.
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.