SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Effects of cochlear implantation on quality of life in patients with age-related hearing loss: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Auditory Performance Analysis and Evaluation of Quality of Life After Cochlear Implantation in Patients Aged 60 (Sixty) and Older.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is among the most prevalent sensory impairments in older adults. However, the magnitude and time course of quality-of-life (QoL) gains associated with cochlear implantation (CI) in ARHL, as well as potential differences across older age strata, have not been synthesized systematically. We conducted a systematic review to characterize QoL changes after CI in ARHL and to contrast the responsiveness of hearing/CI-specific instruments with that of generic QoL measures. Methods: Following PRISMA, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to 7 December 2025. Eligible studies enrolled adults aged ≥60 years meeting an ARHL definition, receiving CI, and reporting outcomes from validated QoL instruments. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias in non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Outcomes measured by different types of QoL instruments at each follow-up time point were synthesized narratively. Results: We included 16 studies (842 participants). According to ROBINS-I, most studies had at least moderate risk of bias, and approximately one third were judged to have a serious risk of bias. Across studies, hearing/CI-specific measures (e.g., Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire, NCIQ and Glasgow Benefit Inventory, GBI) more consistently detected post-CI gains, particularly in domains related to sound perception and social support. In contrast, generic QoL instruments (e.g., WHOQOL-OLD) more often suggested a delayed benefit signal, typically becoming statistically apparent around 6 months after surgery and mainly involving sensory abilities, social participation, and mental health, while changes in physical-functioning domains were limited. Conclusion: On the basis of observational studies with predominantly moderate to serious risk of bias, current evidence suggests that QoL tends to improve after CI in adults with ARHL and that chronological age itself does not appear to be a major constraint on CI-related benefit. Future studies should prioritize CI-specific instruments (e.g., Cochlear Implant Quality of Life, CIQOL), harmonize follow-up schedules, and explicitly examine longer-term benefit trajectories in the oldest-old to strengthen evidence for expectation management and rehabilitation planning.
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.