Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41144440›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

MED-EL hearing solution registry: An examination of the strengths and limitations of a cochlear implant registry.

Uwe Baumann, Tobias Weissgerber, Andreas Radeloff, Karin A Koinig, Magdalena Breu, Jasmine Rinnofner, Vera Lohnherr, Stefan Dazert, Christiane Völter, Ilona Anderson and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Uwe BaumannENT/Audiological Acoustics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-2661
Tobias WeissgerberENT/Audiological Acoustics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Andreas RadeloffDivision of Otorhinolaryngology and Research Center Neurosensory Science, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Karin A KoinigClinical Research Department, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-4934
Magdalena BreuClinical Research Department, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.
Jasmine RinnofnerClinical Research Department, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.
Vera LohnherrHals-, Nasen- und Ohrenklinik (Kopfklinik) Im Neuenheimer Feld, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan DazertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany.
Christiane VölterDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany.
Ilona AndersonClinical Research Department, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-6661
Joachim MüllerClinic and Polyclinic for Ear, Nose, and Throat Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Daniel PolterauerClinic and Polyclinic for Ear, Nose, and Throat Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Hospital, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5008-7595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a significant gap in routine clinical data concerning cochlear implant (CI) users, particularly regarding real-world outcomes. To address this, the present study focuses on the MED-EL Hearing Solution (MEHS) multicenter registry, which covers 5 clinics in Germany. Participants were users of a SONNET 2 or SONNET 2 EAS audio processor. Anonymized data that were routinely collected were extracted and analyzed by a third-party organization. Speech test outcomes (monosyllables and numbers), hours of daily use, self-perceived level of auditory benefit, and safety were assessed. Outcomes from 361 SONNET 2 (or SONNET 2 EAS) users, including 57 bilateral users, were extracted and analyzed. Speech test outcomes increased significantly from pre-operatively to 1 year of CI use in monosyllables (median 10.0% to 65.0%) and numbers (median 77.8% to 100.0%) (both p < 0.001). The majority (79%) of people used their device for at least 9 hours a day. The level of self-perceived auditory benefit was "moderate". Safety was assessed as per participant self-report: 17 minor clinical events were reported, none were new or unresolved. The data obtained from the MEHS registry offers valuable real-life evidence from routine clinical evaluations, which can support clinicians in developing more informed guidelines and treatment plans. The SONNET 2 (EAS) is effective and safe to use. Registries have the potential to provide a wealth of data that can be used to improve hearing health care. However, the success of registries depends on consistent participation and adherence to standardized protocols by clinical centers. Variability in clinical practices, demographic factors, and reporting standards across centers poses significant challenges to achieving homogeneous and usable data.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsRegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHearing LossHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpeech PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41144440
PMCPMC12558452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.