↓ Skip to main content

CINGLE-trial: cochlear implantation for siNGLE-sided deafness, a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
CINGLE-trial: cochlear implantation for siNGLE-sided deafness, a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation
Published in
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12901-015-0016-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeroen PM Peters, Alice van Zon, Adriana L Smit, Gijsbert A van Zanten, G Ardine de Wit, Inge Stegeman, Wilko Grolman

Abstract

Individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD) have problems with speech perception in noise, localisation of sounds and with communication and social interaction in their daily life. Current treatment modalities (Contralateral Routing of Sound systems [CROS] and Bone Conduction Devices [BCD]) do not restore binaural hearing. Based on low level of evidence studies, CROS and BCD do not improve speech perception in noise or sound localisation. In contrast, cochlear implantation (CI) may overcome the limitations of CROS and BCD, as binaural input can be restored. Promising results have previously been achieved on speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus and quality of life. A single-center Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) was designed to compare all treatment strategies for SSD. One hundred and twenty adult single-sided deaf patients (duration of deafness >3 months and maximum 10 years; pure tone average at 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz, deaf ear: threshold equal to or more than 70 dB, better ear: threshold of maximum 30 dB) will be included in this trial and randomised to CI, 'first BCD, then CROS' or 'first CROS, then BCD'-groups. After the trial period, patients in the two latter groups may choose with which treatment option they continue. Outcomes of interest are speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus and quality of life. These outcomes will be measured during a baseline visit and at follow up visits, which will take place at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months after onset of treatment. Furthermore, an economic evaluation will be performed and adverse events will be monitored. This RCT allows for a comparison between the two current treatment modalities for single-sided deafness and a new promising treatment strategy, CI, on a range of health outcomes: speech perception in noise, sound localization, tinnitus and quality of life. Additionally, we will be able to answer the question if the additional costs of CI are justified by increased benefits, when compared to current treatment strategies. This study will inform health policy makers with regard to reimbursement of CI. Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Greece 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
#43
of 82 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,426
of 267,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them