SynthesisThe Laryngoscope2025
Systematic Review of Quality of Life in Bone Anchored Hearing: Conductive vs. Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
Synthesis in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Quality of Life in Bone Anchored Hearing: Conductive vs. Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.The Laryngoscope · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically review the differences in disease-specific quality of life (QoL) benefits experienced by bone-anchored hearing implant (BAHI) users between those diagnosed with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (U-SNHL) and those with conductive/mixed hearing loss (CHL). DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were searched for in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane (Wiley), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Africa Wide Information (Ebsco) and Global Index Medicus (WHO) from inception to October 23, 2022. Updated searches were performed on November 9, 2023, and July 11, 2024. REVIEW
methodsThere were no restrictions on language. PRISMA standards were followed, and screening was conducted by two independent reviewers in Rayyan, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Risk of bias was assessed using RoBANS. Articles were included if patients were implanted with a BAHI and administered a validated, disease-specific QoL measure.
resultsOne thousand, three hundred twelve articles were identified after duplicate removal, with 56 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Eight different disease-specific QoL measures were administered. In all, the APHAB's "Global" (p = 0.0002), EC (p < 0.00001), and BN (p = 0.02) scores, as well as the GBI's "Global" (p = 0.0001), "General" (p = 0.002), and "Physical" (p = 0.02) scores were significantly different between U-SNHL and CHL populations.
conclusionThese results demonstrated disease-specific QoL differences between BAHI users with U-SNHL and CHL. Specifically, patients with CHL reported greater benefits in domains pertaining to communication ease, the clarity of sound, and their overall health and psychosocial status.
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.