ArticleBMJ open2026
Listening effort among adult cochlear implant users: a protocol for a systematic review and measure-specific meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochlear implants (CIs) are the standard of care for profound deafness, yet clinical success is often measured solely by speech recognition scores. These metrics provide an incomplete picture; they indicate what a patient hears but fail to account for the mental workload required to achieve that performance.
objectiveThe primary goal of this meta-analysis is to quantitatively compare the magnitude of listening effort in post-lingually deafened adults using cochlear implants (CIs) versus normal-hearing controls. Secondary goals are to: (1) evaluate within-group CI contrasts under varying task demands and signal-to-noise ratios; (2) compare the sensitivity and effect sizes of listening effort across subjective, behavioural and physiological measurement domains and (3) conduct planned subgroup analyses to assess the impact of clinical characteristics on listening effort. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive systematic search will be conducted from inception to the present across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central. The review focuses on post-lingually deafened adults (≥ 12 months device experience and ≥18 years of age). We will employ a measure-specific meta-analytical approach, synthesising data separately across three domains: subjective (eg, self-reported scales), behavioural (eg, dual-task paradigms), and physiological (eg, pupillometry). Pooled effect sizes ( ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study involves the secondary analysis of publicly available data, external ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261278088.
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.