Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35951334›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2022

Understanding Patient Expectations Before Implantation Using the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-Expectations Instrument.

Theodore R McRackan, Brittany N Hand, Shreya Chidarala, Judy R Dubno

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Role of Preimplantation Cochlear Implant Expectations on Postimplantation Decisional Regret and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal, Prospective Pilot Study.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  3. Factors Associated with Preoperative Patient Expectations in the Cochlear Implant Evaluation Process.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Next day cochlear implant switch-on: the New Zealand experience.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Theodore R McRackanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Brittany N HandSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Shreya ChidaralaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Judy R DubnoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Medical University of South Carolina · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

A New Quality-of-Life Instrument to Assess Functional Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation in AdultsK23DC016911 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI MCRACKAN, THEODORE RICHARDSON · 2019 to 2021
$659k
NIDCD NIH HHS K23 DC016911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Previous research suggests that clinicians view realistic patient expectations as the most important nonaudiological factor in the decision to proceed with a cochlear implant (CI). However, clinicians have few data to determine whether patients' outcome expectations are realistic. Objective: To address this unmet clinical need through the development and psychometric analysis of a new patient-reported outcome measure, the CI Quality of Life (CIQOL) Expectations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary CI center from February 26, 2020, to August 31, 2021. First, a team comprising 2 CI audiologists, a CI surgeon, a hearing scientist, and 2 psychometricians with experience in instrument development converted all items from the CIQOL-35 Profile instrument into statements reflecting expected outcomes. Then, cognitive interviews with 20 potential CI users assessed the clarity and comprehensiveness of the new instrument. Next, responses to the CIQOL-Expectations instrument for 131 potential adult CI candidates were psychometrically analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Finally, degree to which patient expectations changed from before to after and their CI evaluation appointments was measured. Intervention: The CIQOL-Expectations instrument. Results: Of 178 participants, 85 (47.8%) were female, and there was 1 (0.6%) Asian, 26 (14.6%) Black or African American, 1 (0.6%) Latinx, and 150 (84.3%) White individuals. No major content or grammar changes were identified during the cognitive interviews. Overall, all CIQOL domains demonstrated adequate to strong psychometric properties. Several domains did not meet all a priori established indicators of model fit or ability to separate CI users based on response patterns, but all met most indicators. Potential CI users demonstrated the highest mean (SD) expectation scores for the environment (70.2 [20.8]) and social (68.4 [18.0]) domains. In addition, the entertainment (20 [15.3%]) and environment (31 [24.4%]) domains had the highest percentage of patients with expectation scores of 100. Yet, normative CIQOL-35 Profile data from experienced CI users suggested few patients obtain this high degree of functional benefit after implant. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that the CIQOL-Expectations instrument may provide an opportunity to assess potential CI users' expected outcomes using modification of an established CIQOL instrument and a patient-centered framework. The included items and domains reflect real-world functional abilities valued by CI users and may provide opportunities for an evidence-based shared decision-making approach to the CI evaluation process. With this instrument, clinicians can compare individual patients' pre-CI outcome expectations with established normative data and provide appropriate counseling.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMotivationQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID35951334
PMCPMC9372907
OpenAlexW4294992074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.