ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2026
Preoperative Hearing Aids Improve Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to investigate the effects of preoperative auditory rehabilitation using hearing aids in patients with prolonged hearing deprivation.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 204 patients who underwent cochlear implantation surgery at age >60 years using a single university hospital database. In total, 135 patients with a duration of deafness (DoD) >10 years were divided into three groups according to perioperative hearing aid use: unaided (n=22, 16.3%), aided (n=92, 68.1%; comprising 22 ipsilateral hearing aid users and 70 bilateral hearing aid users), and contralateral-only aided (n=21, 15.5%). We identified the highest postoperative sentence recognition score (Max_S) and compared this measure across groups.
resultsMax_S was significantly higher in the DoD <10 years group than in the DoD ≥10 years group (72.38±25.74 vs. 64.09±32.29, P=0.048). Among patients with DoD ≥10 years, the aided group had significantly better Max_S than the unaided group (69.84±28.72 vs. 47.86±37.14, P=0.015). After one-to-two propensity score matching, Max_S remained significantly better in the aided group than in the unaided group (73.64±29.10 vs. 47.86±37.14, P=0.007).
conclusionOur study demonstrated the need for hearing rehabilitation during the period of hearing deprivation, including on the ear to be implanted, regardless of whether it produced immediate improvement in hearing levels.
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.