Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34001843›Full record

Observational studyMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2021

Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Prelingually Deafened Adults with and without Sound Deprivation: Are There Differences in Quality of Life?

Andrea Canale, Francesco Macocco, Drita Ndrev, Giulia Gabella, Gitana Scozzari, Roberto Albera, Giancarlo Pecorari, Andrea Albera

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea CanaleEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Francesco MacoccoEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Drita NdrevEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giulia GabellaEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Gitana ScozzariMolinette Hospital Medical Direction, AOU City of Health and Science of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Roberto AlberaEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giancarlo PecorariEar, Nose and Throat (ENT) Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Andrea AlberaDepartment of Neuroscience "Rita Levi Montalcini", University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
University of Turin · ITFondazione Ricerca Molinette · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Indications for cochlear implantation (CI) are constantly being updated, and with them, the audiometric results achieved by patients. Patient satisfaction should always be considered, even in patients with lower audiological results. The aim of the present study was to compare quality of life (QoL), self-perceived hearing benefit, and audiometric results between prelingually and postlingually deafened patients, with and without sound deprivation, after CI. MATERIAL AND METHODS The sample included 46 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss: 22 postlingually deafened and 24 prelingually deafened, further subdivided into sound-deprived (n=10) and non-sound-deprived (n=14). Auditory performance was evaluated with pure tone audiometry, speech recognition scores (SRS), and self-perceived hearing benefit, whereas QoL was evaluated with 2 self-reported questionnaires (Comprehensive Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF). RESULTS Audiometric results were worse in the prelingually deafened than in the postlingually deafened group, and worse in the prelingually deafened patients with sound deprivation. There was no marked difference in perceived CI benefit or QoL between the 2 groups or within the 2 prelingually deafened subgroups. No correlation was found between SRS and duration of CI use or between QoL and SRS in the prelingually and postlingually deafened groups. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate better auditory performance for the postlingually deafened group and no differences in perceived QoL or benefit of CI between the groups. The sound-deprived patients had equal scores on the perceived QoL questionnaire. These analyses suggest that sound-deprived, prelingually deafened patients may benefit from CI.

Indexed as

AdultAudiometry, Pure-ToneCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsDeafnessFemaleHearingHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesSoundSpeech Discrimination TestsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34001843
PMCPMC8140525
OpenAlexW3161425531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.