ArticleOtology & neurotology open2025
Remote Programming of Adult and Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: Clinical Trial Results.
Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Remote cochlear implant programming: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and implementation outcomes.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 · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of remote cochlear implant (CI) programming. The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate that speech recognition in quiet after remote fitting is no worse than speech recognition in quiet after in-person office fitting. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of unanticipated adverse device effects related to remote programming. Study design and setting: Prospective within-subjects interventional study at 5 US centers. Participants: 17 CI recipients (12 electric-only [EO] hearing; 5 with aidable residual hearing) with a minimum of 6 months of CI experience. Intervention: Programming conducted in person and remotely via a smartphone application. Main outcome measures: Speech recognition, fitting duration, and subjective questionnaires. Results: In the EO cohort, mean AzBio speech recognition for in-person created programs was 89.28% (SE = 3.48), compared with 91.94% (SE = 2.76) for programs created remotely. The combined EO and aidable residual hearing cohort's mean speech recognition for programs created in person was 89.04% (SE = 2.66) versus 90.99% (SE = 2.09) for remotely created programs. The observed Conclusions: Remote programming provides noninferior outcomes to in-person programming and represents an important step toward improving the accessibility and affordability of obtaining audiology services by eliminating the need to travel. Participants and audiologists rated remote programming positively.
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.