Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33245451›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2021

The effect of cochlear implantation on autonomy, participation and work in postlingually deafened adults: a scoping review.

Hugo G B Nijmeijer, Noud M Keijsers, Wendy J Huinck, Emmanuel A M Mylanus

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Socio-economic impact of cochlear implantation in adults: an Italian study.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of Hearing Loss on Social Participation in Children: A Scoping Review.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hugo G B NijmeijerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. hugo.nijmeijer@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2184-1090
Noud M KeijsersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Wendy J HuinckDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Emmanuel A M MylanusDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis scoping review examines the available evidence on the effect of unilateral cochlear implantation (CI) in adults with postlingual bilateral hearing loss on societal-related outcomes in terms of work, autonomy and participation.

methodsFive databases were searched (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library). Publications were screened in three steps on inclusion criteria. Of the 4230 screened publications, 110 met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for data extraction regarding outcomes "work", "autonomy", "participation". Study characteristics and key findings are presented and narratively described.

resultsTwenty-seven publications were included and categorized into retrospective (n = 3), cross-sectional (n = 18) or prospective (n = 6) study designs. Measurement or identification of number of outcomes (no) were related to work (no = 20), participation (no = 9) and autonomy or independency (no = 10). Most studies indicated benefits of CI on these outcomes. However, some studies did not or indicated additional barriers for benefits. Eleven publications primarily aimed to study one or more of our primary outcomes.

conclusionIn this literature search, scientific databases are reviewed. The results indicate that there is a relatively small body of evidence regarding the effect of CI on the outcomes "work", "autonomy" and "participation". Even though there are some limitations of the current study including some overlap in outcome definitions, most included studies indicate a beneficial effect of CI on work, autonomy and participation. The lack of consensus in definitions and the small body of evidence indicates a need for additional prospective studies investigating the societal outcomes of CI in postlingually deafened adults.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAutonomyCochlear implantHearing lossParticipationWork

Identifiers

PMID33245451
PMCPMC8328847
OpenAlexW3109757436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.