GuidelineBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Brazilian Society of Otology Task Force - bone-anchored hearing system - recommendations based on strength of evidence.
Guideline in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 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
objectivesTo provide evidence-based recommendations for the indication of bone anchored hearing system in adults and children.
methodsTask force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians' guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association's guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions.
resultsThe topics were divided into four parts: 1) Non-implantable hearing devices; 2) Percutaneous systems; 3) Passive transcutaneous systems; 4) Active transcutaneous systems.
conclusionsAll types of BAHSs provide significant and sustained benefits, and device selection should be individualized according to the patient's audiological profile, anatomic considerations, and personal preferences. Active transcutaneous devices are more cost-effective for health care systems and demonstrate superior long-term safety and quality-of-life outcomes compared with percutaneous devices, but with no statistically significant difference in quality of life when compared to each other.
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.