269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24144046)
1. Audiogram and cochlear implant candidacy--UK perspective.
Chundu S; Flynn SL
Cochlear Implants Int; 2014 Jul; 15(4):241-4. PubMed ID: 24144046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can routine office-based audiometry predict cochlear implant evaluation results?
Gubbels SP; Gartrell BC; Ploch JL; Hanson KD
Laryngoscope; 2017 Jan; 127(1):216-222. PubMed ID: 27797418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An evaluation of hearing preservation outcomes in routine cochlear implant care: Implications for candidacy.
Verschuur C; Hellier W; Teo C
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():62-5. PubMed ID: 27099115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Identification of Pure-Tone Audiologic Thresholds for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Candidacy: A Systematic Review.
de Kleijn JL; van Kalmthout LWM; van der Vossen MJB; Vonck BMD; Topsakal V; Bruijnzeel H
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2018 Jul; 144(7):630-638. PubMed ID: 29800000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.
Lovett RE; Vickers DA; Summerfield AQ
Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):14-23. PubMed ID: 25170781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluating recommended audiometric changes to candidacy using the speech intelligibility index.
Leal C; Marriage J; Vickers D
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():8-12. PubMed ID: 27099103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Audiometry-Based Screening Procedure for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.
Hoppe U; Hast A; Hocke T
Otol Neurotol; 2015 Jul; 36(6):1001-5. PubMed ID: 25700016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Candidacy criteria for paediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in the United Kingdom.
Vickers D; Summerfield Q; Lovett R
Cochlear Implants Int; 2015 Jan; 16 Suppl 1():S48-9. PubMed ID: 25614269
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Criteria versus guidelines: Are we doing the best for our paediatric patients?
Hanvey K; Ambler M; Maggs J; Wilson K
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():78-82. PubMed ID: 27099118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Access to aidable residual hearing in adult candidates for cochlear implantation in the UK.
Fielden CA; Hampton R; Smith S; Kitterick PT
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():70-3. PubMed ID: 27099116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. AI model for predicting adult cochlear implant candidacy using routine behavioral audiometry.
Carlson ML; Carducci V; Deep NL; DeJong MD; Poling GL; Brufau SR
Am J Otolaryngol; 2024; 45(4):104337. PubMed ID: 38677145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users.
Eisenberg LS; Kirk KI; Martinez AS; Ying EA; Miyamoto RT
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2004 May; 130(5):563-9. PubMed ID: 15148177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Inside implant criteria or not? - Detection of non-organic hearing loss during cochlear implant assessment.
Mistry SG; Carr SD; Tapper L; Meredith B; Strachan DR; Raine CH
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Nov; 17(6):276-282. PubMed ID: 27808008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Expert opinion: Can different assessments be used to overcome current candidacy issues?
Lamb B
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():3-7. PubMed ID: 27078520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study.
Fraysse B; Dillier N; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Morera Perez C; Morgon AH; Müller-Deile J; Ramos Macias A
Am J Otol; 1998 Sep; 19(5):591-7. PubMed ID: 9752966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Impact of unilateral vs. bilateral evaluation on cochlear implant candidacy.
Hoppe U; Hocke T; Hast A
Acta Otolaryngol; 2024 Mar; 144(3):207-218. PubMed ID: 38648394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cochlear implant assessment and candidacy for children with partial hearing.
Wilson K; Ambler M; Hanvey K; Jenkins M; Jiang D; Maggs J; Tzifa K
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():66-9. PubMed ID: 26913562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates.
McRackan TR; Fabie JE; Burton JA; Munawar S; Holcomb MA; Dubno JR
Otol Neurotol; 2018 Aug; 39(7):e543-e549. PubMed ID: 29912837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials to Evaluate Cochlear Implant Candidacy in an Ear With Long-standing Hearing Loss: A Case Report.
Patel TR; Shahin AJ; Bhat J; Welling DB; Moberly AC
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2016 Oct; 125(10):858-61. PubMed ID: 27357975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Outcomes in implanted teenagers who do not meet the adult candidacy criteria.
Vickers F; Bradley J
Cochlear Implants Int; 2016 Apr; 17 Suppl 1():83-8. PubMed ID: 27099119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
