ArticleScientific reports2026
Initial evaluation of using the AudioKey 2.0 app for cochlear implant usage data collection.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Cochlear implants (CIs) improve quality of life for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss. MED-EL's AudioKey 2.0 app allows CI users to track usage while providing insights into their behaviour and satisfaction. The primary aim of the present data analysis was to evaluate the AudioKey 2.0 app for collecting CI usage data. As part of this initial evaluation, we also explored how people use their CIs and evaluated their satisfaction with the app. Over 3 months, data were collected from audio processors via AudioKey 2.0 and stored at MED-EL. Metrics included daily usage hours, environmental audio processor modes, and streaming methods. User feedback on the app was also gathered. Data from 5,967 audio processors showed participants averaged 11.1 h of daily CI use, with 'speech in noise' being the most used mode. Streaming features were rarely used; 75% of users averaged ≤ 0.01 h per day. User ratings indicated that 63% of users found the app 'good', while approximately 10% rated it 'bad'. This initial evaluation shows app-based data collection is a promising approach for understanding CI usage.
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.