Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41622271›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2026

Identification of decision-making criteria for device selection by cochlear implant patients - a pilot study.

Stefanie Bruschke, Timo Stöver, Silke Helbig, Uwe Baumann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Stefanie BruschkeENT Department, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt a. M, Germany. stefanie.bruschke@ukffm.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9418-1372
Timo StöverENT Department, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt a. M, Germany.
Silke HelbigENT Department, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt a. M, Germany.
Uwe BaumannENT Department, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt a. M, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1295-2661

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrior to a cochlear implant (CI) treatment, patients undergo an extensive consultation process. In Germany, patients themselves usually can select a device from one of the offered CI manufacturers. Patients therefore receive a large amount of information, to support the challenging decision-making process. The aim of the study was to evaluate the parameters that are most important to patients during the consultation process for choosing a CI device.

methodsIn total, 41 patients were included in our study. Questionnaires were used to assess the subjective importance of various device related parameters, such as features of the implant, processor, hearing programs and accessories for the counseling process for selection of the CI device. A Likert scale was used to assess the importance of the respective parameters (“very important”, “important”, “rather unimportant” and “unimportant”). The assessment was done at three time points: preoperatively (day of device selection), approx. three weeks postoperatively (after completion of the initial fitting) and after six months of experience with CI use.

resultsThe “implant reliability” and the “processor wearing comfort” were rated as very important at all observation points. The availability of a “noise reduction” algorithm was also rated as important. The features of the implant, such as the “shape of the electrode” and “length of the electrode array”, as well as features of the remote control, such as the “availability of a display”, were rated as less important content during the counseling for device selection. The rating for some parameters, e.g. subjective importance, has even changed over time. The availability of “directional microphone technique” and the ”availability of processor buttons” was rated more important postoperatively with CI usage experience than preoperatively.

conclusionBased on the study results, important and unimportant parameters of the CI system during the counseling process were identified. It should be taken into account that several parameters important to the patient may change over time with increasing practical CI experience. Our data may be useful in optimizing the CI counseling process. Although CI counseling must follow defined quality standards, it remains an individualized process that must take into account the specific needs of the patient.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessDecision MakingAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesCochlear implantDecision criteriaDevice selectionPatient counsellingPilot study

Identifiers

PMID41622271
PMCPMC13002635

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.