Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285977›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Bimodal Hearing or Bilateral Cochlear Implants? Ask the Patient.

René H Gifford, Michael F Dorman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Benefits of Bimodal Stimulation to Speech Perception in Noise and Silence.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Are There Real-world Benefits to Bimodal Listening?Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

René H GiffordDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
Michael F DormanDepartment of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.

Funding

Research Project: Sensory and Multisensory Contributions to AutismU54HD083211 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI DYKENS, ELISABETH MAY · 2015 to 2019
$7.1M
Cochlear Implants: Combined Electric and Binaural Acoustic StimulationR01DC009404 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GIFFORD, RENE H · 2010 to 2019
$3.4M
Cochlear Implant performance in Realistic Listening EnvironmentsR01DC010821 · NIDCD · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI DORMAN, MICHAEL F., GIFFORD, RENE H · 2010 to 2014
$1.6M
NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD083211NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009404NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC010821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness of various measures of speech understanding in distinguishing performance differences between adult bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to provide a preliminary evidence-based tool guiding clinical decisions regarding bilateral CI candidacy.

designThis study used a multiple-baseline, cross-sectional design investigating speech recognition performance for 85 experienced adult CI recipients (49 bimodal, 36 bilateral). Speech recognition was assessed in a standard clinical test environment with a single loudspeaker using the minimum speech test battery for adult CI recipients as well as with an R-SPACE 8-loudspeaker, sound-simulation system. All participants were tested in three listening conditions for each measure including each ear alone as well as in the bilateral/bimodal condition. In addition, we asked each bimodal listener to provide a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?"

resultsThis study yielded three primary findings: (1) there were no significant differences between bimodal and bilateral CI performance or binaural summation on clinical measures of speech recognition, (2) an adaptive speech recognition task in the R-SPACE system revealed significant differences in performance and binaural summation between bimodal and bilateral CI users, with bilateral CI users achieving significantly better performance and greater summation, and (3) the patient's answer to the question, "Do you think you need a second CI?" held high sensitivity (100% hit rate) for identifying likely bilateral CI candidates and moderately high specificity (77% correct rejection rate) for correctly identifying listeners best suited with a bimodal hearing configuration.

conclusionsClinics cannot rely on current clinical measures of speech understanding, with a single loudspeaker, to determine bilateral CI candidacy for adult bimodal listeners nor to accurately document bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal hearing configuration. Speech recognition in a complex listening environment, such as R-SPACE, is a sensitive and appropriate measure for determining bilateral CI candidacy and also likely for documenting bilateral benefit relative to a previous bimodal configuration. In the absence of an available R-SPACE system, asking the patient whether or not s/he thinks s/he needs a second CI is a highly sensitive measure, which may prove clinically useful.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical Decision-MakingCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsFemaleHearing Loss, BilateralHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30285977
PMCPMC6447482

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.