SynthesisOntario health technology assessment series2020
Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment.
Synthesis in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cochlear implant procedure. Italian Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SIOeChCF) and Italian Society of Audiology and Phoniatrics (SIAF). Part 1: cochlear implants in adults.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025Guideline
- Trial
- Comprehensive analysis of hearing function in Morquio A syndrome: Implications for diagnosis and management.Molecular genetics and metabolism · 2026Article
- The Cost Effectiveness of Upgrading Cochlear Implant Sound Processors in Australia: A Novel Application of Individual-Level Microsimulation Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Osia System to Percutaneous Bone Conduction Devices in Sweden.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026Article
- A cost-utility analysis of the transcutaneous Osia System® compared to the percutaneous bone-conduction hearing implant Baha® Connect for hearing loss in Spain.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Validation of the Hearing Utility Measure (HUM) in Cochlear Implant Candidates and Users.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Personalizing Cochlear Implant Care in Single-Sided Deafness: A Distinct Paradigm from Bilateral Hearing Loss.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- A Position Statement on the Treatment of Hearing Impairment, Focused on Hearing Aids, From the Korean Otological Society Hearing Aid Study Group.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Cochlear and Bone Conduction Implants in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Localization, Speech in Noise, and Quality of Life.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Hearing Outcomes in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss. The Benefits of Rehabilitative Strategies: Preliminary Results.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Children: Etiology, Audiological Characteristics, and Treatment.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Cochlear Osia System and Baha Attract System in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss or Single-Sided Deafness.Journal of market access & health policy · 2024Article
- A cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants for single sided deafness in adults and children in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2024Article
- Influence of Age on Speech Recognition in Noise and Hearing Effort in Listeners with Age-Related Hearing Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Observational
- The Functional Hearing Gain with an Active Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Implant Does Not Correlate with the Subjective Hearing Performance.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Application of New Materials in Auditory Disease Treatment.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.
methodsWe conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.
resultsWe included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%,
conclusionsBased on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32194878PMC7080453What 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.