Trial reportScientific reports2026
Electromyography of the stapedius muscle via a retrofacial approach and electrically evoked stapedius reflex during cochlear implant surgery: a prospective bicentric study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term Electromyographic Monitoring of the Stapedius Reflex via Implanted Electrodes in Sheep: Toward Objective Autonomous Cochlear Implant Fitting.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring the electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold (eSRT) with electromyography (EMG) of the stapedius muscle (SM) may offer an objective approach for cochlear implant (CI) fitting. During unilateral CI surgery in 14 adult patients with single-sided deafness, a retrofacial or anterior approach were used to evaluate the feasibility of SM-EMG during acoustically and electrically elicited stapedius reflex (SR). No adverse events occurred. This neurophysiology-based method was compared with visual detection of the SR. Intraoperatively, the belly of the SM was accessed via the retrofacial approach in 11 patients and via an anterior approach in 3 patients. Objective SR determination using electrical stimulation through the CI combined with SM-EMG was feasible in 7 patients using the retrofacial approach, but in only 1 patient using the anterior approach. Overall, electrical stimulation elicited SM-EMG responses in 8 patients, whereas acoustic stimulation elicited responses in only 3 patients. When eSRT measurement via SM-EMG was possible, stimulation thresholds were equal or slightly lower than thresholds identified visually in 85% of all SR measurements. SM-EMG-based eSRT appears to be a viable approach to estimate the eSRT intraoperatively in CI users as it shows similar performance as current clinical intraoperative standard. Further investigation is needed to investigate the relationship between intraoperative SM-EMG-based eSRT and patients' comfort levels, establish correction factors, and potentially enable integration into future closed-loop smart CI devices.
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.