ArticlePloS one2025
MED-EL hearing solution registry: An examination of the strengths and limitations of a cochlear implant registry.
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.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.