Active Versus Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [RETRACTED]
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Post-publication record
- Nature
- Retraction
- Reason
- Error in Data;Investigation by Third Party;
- Date
- 2/21/2022 0:00
- Flagged by OpenAlex?
- Yes
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement — it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Active and passive transcutaneous devices (tBCHDs) have been introduced in an effort to address complication concerns with percutaneous devices. Direct comparison of active and passive devices through evidence synthesis practices is incomplete. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to synthesize and compare available evidence on audiological, quality of life, and complication-related outcomes of active and passive tBCHDs. DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to September 23, 2019. Observational and experimental studies investigating active or passive tBCHDs in adults were eligible. Studies were screened independently in duplicate. This study is reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias and quality assessments were completed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Quality Appraisal Tool for Case Series. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models. Audiological outcomes included changes in pure-tone average, functional hearing, and high-frequency hearing. Quality of life outcomes included patient-reported results. Complications included minor, major, and total complications experienced. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred forty-two nonduplicate articles were screened. Twenty-eight studies were included. Quality of included studies was low overall. The pooled complication rate for active devices was 14.8% (95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.21, I2: 0%). The pooled improvement in functional hearing for active devices among those with mixed or conductive hearing loss was 31.8 dB (95% confidence interval: 27.7-35.9, I2: 44.6). Improvement in functional hearing ranged from 25.2 to 44.3 dB for passive devices. Active devices provided improved high-frequency hearing compared to passive devices: the weighted average hearing gains at 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz were 26.5, 25.7, 31.8, and 34.3 dB for active devices and 26.2, 21.1, 16.8, and 6.4 dB for passive devices, respectively. Both device types demonstrated improvement in ease of communication, reverberation, and understandability in background noise. CONCLUSIONS: Both active and passive tBCHDs demonstrate acceptable safety profiles and QoL improvements. Active devices may provide better hearing outcomes, especially in high frequencies, but high-quality comparative studies are lacking. Future work is needed in this regard.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Ear and Hearing
- Topic
- Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- Dalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- MedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalObservational studyMEDLINESystematic reviewHearing aidConductive hearing lossCINAHLHearing lossPhysical therapyAudiologyInternal medicinePsychological intervention
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes