SynthesisEuropean 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
Remote cochlear implant programming: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and implementation outcomes.
Synthesis 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRemote cochlear implant (CI) programming is increasingly used to expand access to follow-up care. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness and implementation outcomes of synchronous, asynchronous and hybrid remote CI programming in adults and children.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2010 to July 2025. Eligible studies were randomised or observational designs reporting clinical outcomes (speech perception, aided thresholds, impedances, threshold/comfort levels) and/or implementation outcomes (feasibility, satisfaction, technical performance). Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Given heterogeneity in design and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was conducted.
resultsEleven studies (n = 356 CI recipients) met inclusion criteria. Across comparator studies, remote programming produced no clinically meaningful differences relative to in-person programming for speech perception (7/7 studies) or aided thresholds (5/5), and programming parameters remained stable (5/5). Feasibility was high, with session-completion rates typically ≥ 85%. CI recipients and clinicians reported favourable satisfaction, citing reduced travel burden and increased flexibility. Key challenges included intermittent connectivity, need for additional preparation or troubleshooting, limited digital literacy among older adults, and caregiver dependency in paediatric sessions.
conclusionRemote CI programming yields clinical outcomes comparable to in-person programming and is feasible and well accepted across delivery models. However, small sample sizes, limited paediatric evidence, inconsistent technical reporting and a lack of cost-effectiveness data limit confidence in large-scale adoption. Standardised technical endpoints and rigorous multicentre evaluations are required to support scalable and equitable implementation.
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.