ArticleEar and hearing
Selection Criteria for Cochlear Implantation in the United Kingdom and Flanders: Toward a Less Restrictive Standard.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech token detection and discrimination in individual infants using functional near-infrared spectroscopy.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Patient preferences for Remote cochlear implant management: A discrete choice experiment.PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors to Describe the Outcome Characteristics of a CI Recipient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Outcome Prediction of Speech Perception in Quiet and in Noise for Cochlear Implant Candidates Based on Pre-Operative Measures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Investigation of Maximum Monosyllabic Word Recognition as a Predictor of Speech Understanding with Cochlear Implant.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Disparities between objectively measured hearing loss and subjectively perceived aided hearing loss: A scoping review.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Evolving a Model for Cochlear Implant Outcome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear impIant provision.HNO · 2023Article
- The effect of the surgical approach and cochlear implant electrode on the structural integrity of the cochlea in human temporal bones.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cochlear Implants in Veterans: 10-Year Experience at a Single Referral Center.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Factors Affecting the Use of Speech Testing in Adult Audiology.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Home-Based Speech Perception Monitoring for Clinical Use With Cochlear Implant Users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe impact of the newly introduced cochlear implantation criteria of the United Kingdom and Flanders (Dutch speaking part of Belgium) was examined in the patient population of a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands. We compared the patients who would be included/excluded under the new versus old criteria in relation to the actual improvement in speech understanding after implantation in our center. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to examine the effectiveness of the different preoperative assessment approaches used in the United Kingdom and Flanders.
designThe selection criteria were based on preoperative pure-tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz and a speech perception test (SPT) with and without best-aided hearing aids. Postoperatively, the same SPT was conducted to assess the benefit in speech understanding.
resultsThe newly introduced criteria in Flanders and the United Kingdom were less restrictive, resulting in greater percentages of patients implanted with CI (increase of 30%), and sensitivity increase of 31%. The preoperative best-aided SPT, used by both countries, had the highest diagnostic ability to indicate a postoperative improvement of speech understanding. We observed that patient selection was previously dominated by the pure-tone audiometry criteria in both countries, whereas speech understanding became more important in their new criteria. Among patients excluded by the new criteria, seven of eight (the United Kingdom and Flanders) did exhibit improved postoperative speech understanding.
conclusionsThe new selection criteria of the United Kingdom and Flanders led to increased numbers of postlingually deafened adults benefitting from CI. The new British and Flemish criteria depended on the best-aided SPT with the highest diagnostic ability. Notably, the new criteria still led to the rejection of candidates who would be expected to gain considerably in speech understanding after implantation.
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.