The Risk of Meningitis After Cochlear Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the rate of postoperative meningitis (both immediate and long-term) in patients following cochlear implants (CIs). It aims to do so through a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies tracking complications after CIs. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: This review was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies tracking complications following CIs in patients were included. Exclusion criteria included non-English language studies and case series reporting <10 patients. Bias risk was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. RESULTS: = 55%). Subgroup meta-analysis showed this rate had 95% CIs crossing 0% in implanted patients who received the pneumococcal vaccine, antibiotic prophylaxis, those with postoperative acute otitis media (AOM), and those implanted less than 5 years. CONCLUSION: Meningitis is a rare complication following CIs. Our estimated rates of meningitis after CIs appear lower than prior estimates based on epidemiological studies in the early 2000s. However, the rate still appears higher than the baseline rate in the general population. The risk was very low in implanted patients who received the pneumococcal vaccine, antibiotic prophylaxis, received unilateral or bilateral implantations, developed AOM, those implanted with a round window or cochleostomy techniques, and those under 5 years.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".