These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25700016)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. [Longterm Results of a Screening Procedure for Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates].
    Hoppe U; Hocke T; Hast A; Hornung J
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2017 Apr; 96(4):234-238. PubMed ID: 28099984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Maximum monosyllabic score as a predictor for cochlear implant outcome].
    Hoppe U; Hocke T; Hast A; Iro H
    HNO; 2019 Mar; 67(3):199-206. PubMed ID: 30635677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Maximum preimplantation monosyllabic score as predictor of cochlear implant outcome.
    Hoppe U; Hocke T; Hast A; Iro H
    HNO; 2019 Jun; 67(Suppl 2):62-68. PubMed ID: 30944946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effects of residual hearing in traditional cochlear implant candidates after implantation with a conventional electrode.
    Cosetti MK; Friedmann DR; Zhu BZ; Heman-Ackah SE; Fang Y; Keller RG; Shapiro WH; Roland JT; Waltzman SB
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Apr; 34(3):516-21. PubMed ID: 23449440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Referral rates of postlingually deafened adult hearing aid users for a cochlear implant candidacy assessment.
    Looi V; Bluett C; Boisvert I
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Dec; 56(12):919-925. PubMed ID: 28678547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Audiometric Profile of Cochlear Implant Recipients Demonstrates Need for Revising Insurance Coverage.
    Barnes JH; Yin LX; Marinelli JP; Carlson ML
    Laryngoscope; 2021 Jun; 131(6):E2007-E. PubMed ID: 33347621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preservation of hearing in cochlear implant surgery: advantages of combined electrical and acoustical speech processing.
    Gantz BJ; Turner C; Gfeller KE; Lowder MW
    Laryngoscope; 2005 May; 115(5):796-802. PubMed ID: 15867642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Direct Acoustic Cochlear Implants Lead to an Improved Speech Perception Gap Compared to Conventional Hearing Aid.
    Maier H; Lenarz T; Dolležal LV; Busch S
    Otol Neurotol; 2018 Oct; 39(9):1147-1152. PubMed ID: 30106855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Hearing Preservation in Pediatric Cochlear Implantation.
    Carlson ML; Patel NS; Tombers NM; DeJong MD; Breneman AI; Neff BA; Driscoll CLW
    Otol Neurotol; 2017 Jul; 38(6):e128-e133. PubMed ID: 28538468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.