Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32558759›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2020

Explaining Speech Recognition and Quality of Life Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Complementary Contributions of Demographic, Sensory, and Cognitive Factors.

Jeffrey A Skidmore, Kara J Vasil, Shuman He, Aaron C Moberly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Jeffrey A SkidmoreThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Columbus, Ohio.
Kara J Vasil
Shuman He
Aaron C Moberly

Funding

The Impact of Mild Hearing Loss on Auditory Perception in Complex EnvironmentsP20GM109023 · NIGMS · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI AUBUCHON, ANGELA MARIE · 2014 to 2023
$23.4M
NEURAL ENCODING AND AUDITORY PERCEPTION IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT USERSR01DC016038 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HE, SHUMAN · 2017 to 2021
$2.3M
Variability in Speech Recognition for Adults with Cochlear Implants: Bottom-up and Top-down FactorsK23DC015539 · NIDCD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MOBERLY, AARON C · 2017 to 2021
$934k
NIDCD NIH HHS K23 DC015539NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016038NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

hypothesesAdult cochlear implant (CI) outcomes depend on demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. However, these factors have not been examined together comprehensively for relations to different outcome types, such as speech recognition versus quality of life (QOL). Three hypotheses were tested: 1) speech recognition will be explained most strongly by sensory factors, whereas QOL will be explained more strongly by cognitive factors. 2) Different speech recognition outcome domains (sentences versus words) and different QOL domains (physical versus social versus psychological functioning) will be explained differentially by demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. 3) Including cognitive factors as predictors will provide more power to explain outcomes than demographic and sensory predictors alone.

backgroundA better understanding of the contributors to CI outcomes is needed to prognosticate outcomes before surgery, explain outcomes after surgery, and tailor rehabilitation efforts.

methodsForty-one adult postlingual experienced CI users were assessed for sentence and word recognition, as well as hearing-related QOL, along with a broad collection of predictors. Partial least squares regression was used to identify factors that were most predictive of outcome measures.

resultsSupporting our hypotheses, speech recognition abilities were most strongly dependent on sensory skills, while QOL outcomes required a combination of cognitive, sensory, and demographic predictors. The inclusion of cognitive measures increased the ability to explain outcomes, mainly for QOL.

conclusionsExplaining variability in adult CI outcomes requires a broad assessment approach. Identifying the most important predictors depends on the particular outcome domain and even the particular measure of interest.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultCognitionHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID32558759
PMCPMC7875311

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.