Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42472950›Full record

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

Tonotopic versus conventional frequency mapping in adult cochlear implant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Nourah Almarri, Fabian Peralta, Jorge Silva, Estelle Page-Taylor, Arijit Ganguly, Eman Khalid Hussain, Bertrand Cailliau, Jose Manuel Morales-Puebla, Luis Lassaletta

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nourah AlmarriJahra Hospital, Ministry of Health, Jahra, Kuwait. nouraalmarii304@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3570-3373
Fabian PeraltaUniversidad Peruana Union, Lima, Peru.
Jorge SilvaCentro Auditivo Del Sur, Villarrica, Chile.
Estelle Page-TaylorDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Logan Hospital, Queensland Health, Brisbane City, QLD, Australia.
Arijit GangulyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ipswich Hospital, Suffolk, UK.
Eman Khalid HussainFaculty of Medicine Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Bertrand CailliauFaculty of Medicine Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jose Manuel Morales-PueblaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Luis LassalettaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn adult cochlear implant users, conventional frequency (CF) mapping is standard practice. Tonotopic fitting (TF) refers to a programming strategy in which the frequency allocation of the speech processor is matched as closely as possible to the natural tonotopic organization of the cochlea. Whether TF mapping improves outcomes over CF remains uncertain.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials comparing tonotopic versus conventional mapping in adult cochlear implant users. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was assessed with I

resultsA total of five publications were included, representing four trials (n = 109). There was no significant difference between TF and CF mapping in speech understanding in quiet (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI -0.82, 0.68; P = 0.86; I

conclusionTF mapping may have potential benefits over CF mapping for speech understanding in noise and music perception. Larger randomized trials are needed to establish the clinical significance of TF mapping.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsProsthesis FittingSpeech PerceptionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCochlear implantsConventional frequency mappingMeta-analysisSystematic reviewTonotopic mapping

Identifiers

PMID42472950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.