Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29227446›Full record

SynthesisOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2018

Meta-analysis of Cochlear Implantation Outcomes Evaluated With General Health-related Patient-reported Outcome Measures.

Theodore R McRackan, Michael Bauschard, Jonathan L Hatch, Emily Franko-Tobin, Harris Richard Droghini, Craig A Velozo, Shaun A Nguyen, Judy R Dubno

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient Characteristics Associated With Speech Recognition and Quality of Life Improvement After Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Factors Associated with Preoperative Patient Expectations in the Cochlear Implant Evaluation Process.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Evaluation of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire in Danish.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Predictors of Short-Term Changes in Quality of Life after Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2023
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Theodore R McRackanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Michael BauschardDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Jonathan L HatchDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Emily Franko-TobinDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Harris Richard DroghiniDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Craig A VelozoDivision of Occupational Therapy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Shaun A NguyenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Judy R DubnoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)KL2TR001452 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI MCRAE-CLARK, AIMEE L · 2015 to 2024
$5.9M
Interdisciplinary Research Training in Otolaryngology and Communication SciencesT32DC014435 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DUBNO, JUDY R · 2015 to 2024
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001452NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC014435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDetermine the change in general health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after cochlear implantation and association with speech recognition. STUDY

designMeta-analysis.

methodsSearch was performed following the PRISMA statement using PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL. Studies on adult cochlear implant (CI) patients measuring HRQOL before and after cochlear implantation were included. Standardized mean difference (SMD) for each measure and pooled effects were determined. A meta-analysis of correlations was also performed between all non-disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and speech recognition after cochlear implantation.

resultsTwenty-two articles met criteria for meta-analysis of HRQOL improvement, but 15 (65%) were excluded due to incomplete statistical reporting. From the seven articles with 274 CI patients that met inclusion criteria, pooled analyses showed a medium positive effect of cochlear implantation on HRQOL (SMD = 0.79). Subset analysis of the HUI-3 measure showed a large effect (SMD = 0.84). Nine articles with 550 CI patients met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis of correlations between non-disease specific PROMs and speech recognition after cochlear implantation. Pooled analysis showed a low correlation between non-disease-specific PROMs and word recognition in quiet (r = 0.35), sentence recognition in quiet (r = 0.40), and sentence recognition in noise (r = 0.32).

conclusionAlthough regularly used, HRQOL measures are not intended to measure nor do they accurately reflect the complex difficulties facing CI patients. Only a medium positive effect of cochlear implantation on HRQOL was observed along with a low correlation between non-disease-specific PROMs and speech recognition. The use of such instruments in this population may underestimate the benefit of cochlear implantation.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeAdultHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID29227446
PMCPMC5728184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.