ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2019
General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation.
Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children with Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.Journal of otology · 2026Article
- Relationships between bilateral auditory brainstem activity and inter-implant interval in children with cochlear implants.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- A Mixed-Rate Strategy on a Bilaterally-Synchronized Cochlear Implant Processor Offering the Opportunity to Provide Both Speech Understanding and Interaural Time Difference Cues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Development and Implementation of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) Functional Staging System.The Laryngoscope · 2022Article
- Best Practices in the Development, Translation, and Cultural Adaptation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Hearing Impairment: Lessons From the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Instruments.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Making the Case for Research on Disease-Modifying Treatments to Tackle Post-lingual Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the extent to which bilateral cochlear implantation increases patient-reported benefit as compared with unilateral implantation and no implantation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases searches were performed using the keywords ("Cochlear Implant" or "Cochlear Implantation") and ("bilateral"). STUDY SELECTION: Studies assessing hearing/CI-specific (CI) and general-health-related (HR) quality of life (QOL) in adult patients after bilateral cochlear implantation were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Of the 31 articles meeting criteria, usable QOL data were available for 16 articles (n = 355 bilateral CI recipients). DATA SYNTHESIS: Standardized mean difference (Δ) for each measure and weighted effects were determined. Meta-analysis was performed for all QOL measures and also independently for hearing/CI-specific QOL and HRQOL.
conclusionWhen measured using hearing/CI-specific QOL instruments, patients reported very large improvements in QOL comparing before cochlear implantation to bilateral CI (Δ=2.07 [1.76-2.38]) and medium improvements comparing unilateral CI to bilateral CI (Δ=0.51 [0.32- 0.71]). Utilization of parallel versus crossover study design did not impact QOL outcomes (χ = 0.512, p = 0.47). No detectable improvements were observed in either CI transition when using HRQOL instruments (no CI to bilateral CI: Δ=0.40 [-0.02 to 0.81]; unilateral CI to bilateral CI: Δ=0.22 [-0.02 to 0.46]).The universal nature of HRQOL instruments may render them insensitive to the medium to large QOL improvements reported by patients using hearing/CI-specific QOL instruments. Given that HRQOL instruments are used to determine the economic benefit of health interventions, these measurement differences suggest that the health economic value of bilateral cochlear implantation has been underestimated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.