Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35456353›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Cochlear Implantation Improves Both Speech Perception and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Prospective Follow-Up Study of Treatment Benefits among Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Kasper Møller Boje Rasmussen, Niels Cramer West, Michael Bille, Matilde Grønborg Sandvej, Per Cayé-Thomasen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nonword Repetition Assessing Auditory and Cognitive Abilities in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kasper Møller Boje RasmussenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0438-6858
Niels Cramer WestDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael BilleDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Matilde Grønborg SandvejDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Per Cayé-ThomasenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Rigshospitalet University Hospital of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKRigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implantation is considered the best treatment option for patients with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss for whom conventional hearing aids are insufficient. We used a repeated measures longitudinal approach to evaluate speech recognition and patient-reported outcomes after cochlear implantation in an unbiased cohort of Danish adult patients in a prospective cohort study. We assessed 39 recipients before and two times after implantation using a battery of tests that included Dantale I, the Danish Hearing in Noise Test, the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, and the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale. The study group improved significantly on all outcome measures following implantation. On average, Dantale I scores improved by 29 percentage points and Hearing in Noise Test scores improved by 22 percentage points. Most notably, the average Dantale score improved from 26 to 70% in the CI in quiet condition and from 12 to 42% in the cochlear implantation in noise condition when tested monaurally. Dantale demonstrated a significant positive correlation with Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale scores, while Hearing in Noise Test had no significant correlation with the patient-reported outcome measures. Patients improved significantly at 4 months and marginally improved further at 14 months, indicating that they were approaching a plateau. Our study's use of audiometric and patient-reported outcome measures provides evidence of the treatment benefits of cochlear implantation in adults, which may help physicians advise patients on treatment decisions and align treatment benefit expectations, as well as serve as a foundation for the development of new cochlear implantation selection criteria.

Indexed as

cochlear implanthearing losshearing rehabilitationoutcomepatient-reported outcome measuresPROMtreatment

Identifiers

PMID35456353
PMCPMC9032498
OpenAlexW4224243273

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.