ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of a mobile-based remote aftercare application in cochlear implant users.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical follow-up for cochlear implant (CI) users is typically carried out in a face-to-face session in a clinical site. Users must travel to the site, which incurs burdens of travel time, expenses, and time lost from work or education. To help alleviate this, a mobile health application, Remote Check, has been developed to facilitate the remote evaluation of both the functionality of the CI system and the hearing performance of the user. Here, we report the results of a real-world field test of Remote Check with a cohort of 29 CI users across two clinics.
methodsPaired Remote Check and face-to-face clinical follow-up session were performed with a cohort of 29 experienced CI users. A psychometric instrument for the evaluation of mobile health applications (the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire, MAUQ) was administered to both users and clinical professionals, along with an ad-hoc survey to evaluate users' experiences regarding travel distances, travel times, costs, and other parameters associated with different types of clinical follow-up sessions. Professionals were also surveyed on the performance of the tool. The durations of Remote Check and face-to-face follow up sessions were compared, and the agreement rate of post-session follow-up actions was determined.
resultsBoth technical checks of the CI and evaluation of hearing performance were possible with Remote Check. Both users and professionals rated the tool highly on the MAUQ instrument. This tool facilitated shorter session times and had strong agreement with face-to-face follow up in terms of further actions. Users also perceived Remote Check as offering the possibility of saving them money.
conclusionMED-EL Remote Check is an adequate tool for the remote evaluation of both the CI system and the users' hearing performance. Remote Check may reduce barriers to care, particularly for rural populations.
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.