Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Cost-utility of cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- More than 20 years of cochlear implantation in adults with acquired single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss: long term clinical outcomes of 78 subjects implanted at the Antwerp University Hospital.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 · 2026Article
- Cochlear and Bone Conduction Implants in Asymmetric Hearing Loss and Single-Sided Deafness: Effects on Localization, Speech in Noise, and Quality of Life.Audiology research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) of cochlear implantation in the treatment of adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL).
methodsThis prospective multicenter pragmatic study including a randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 155 subjects with SSD or AHL. Subjects chose a treatment option between: abstention, Contralateral Routing Of the Signal hearing aids, Bone Conduction Device or Cochlear Implant (CI). Participants who opted for CI were then randomized between two arms: "immediate CI" where the cochlear implantation was performed within one month and "initial observation" where subjects were first observed. The ICUR of CI was determined at 6 months follow-up by comparing the two arms. Utility was measured using EuroQoL- 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), to calculate the gain in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Individual costs were extracted from the French National Health Insurance database. A Markovian MultiState (MMS) model assessed the ICUR evolution over the lifetime horizon.
resultsAmong the 155 included participants, 51 opted for a CI and were randomized. For a 6 months follow-up period, the ICUR was €422,279/QALY gained after CI. Using the MMS model, the ICUR of CI decreased to €57,561/QALY at 10 years follow-up, €38,006/QALY at 20 years, and dropped to €26,715 at 50 years. In the participants with severe tinnitus, mean ICUR was €31,105/QALY at 10 years.
conclusionsCI can be considered as an efficient treatment in SSD and AHL from 20 years follow-up in the global population, and before 10 years follow-up in patients with severe associated tinnitus.
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.