ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Evaluation of Extended Indications for Cochlear Implantation Beyond Conventional Criteria.
Article in Turkish archives of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the indications for cochlear implant (CI) that extend beyond the current criteria of the Health Implementation Communiqué (HIC) of the Turkish Social Security Institution. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 27 patients who underwent CI, even though they did not meet the HIC criteria. All cases were approved by the Scientific Advisory Board on Auditory Implants of the Ministry of Health. Demographic, clinical, and audiological data, including pre- and post-operative pure-tone averages (PTA) and speech discrimination scores (SDS), were analyzed. Results: The cohort included 15 females and 12 males, with a median age of 17 years. Etiologies comprised congenital hearing loss (n=14), idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (n=3), post-meningitic hearing loss (n=2), Menière's disease (n=1), and other acquired causes. Exclusion from the HIC criteria was mainly due to age restrictions for bilateral CI, audiological thresholds outside defined limits, single-sided deafness, SDS above 30%, or a gap of more than four years between chronological and language age. Audiological outcomes from 22 patients revealed a median PTA with the CI alone of 35 dB hearing level and a median SDS of 58%, with significant improvement compared to baseline (p<0.001). While most patients demonstrated substantial benefit, 14.8% (cases 6, 17, 21, 25) exhibited poor performance (SDS <30%). Case analyses underscored the impact of etiology and duration of auditory deprivation on outcomes. Conclusion: CI beyond conventional reimbursement criteria can provide meaningful functional gains. Individualized, evidence-based, multidisciplinary evaluation supports broader access to hearing rehabilitation and is consistent with global trends in personalized auditory care.
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.