BACKGROUND: Annually an estimated 223 children in the UK are born with or acquire permanent profound bilateral deafness (PBHL >or= 95 dB). These children may gain little or no benefit from acoustic hearing aids. However, cochlear implants might enable them to hear. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To bring together the diverse research in this area under the rigor of a systematic review to discover the strength of evidence when comparing the effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants with non-technological support or acoustic hearing aids in children with PBHL. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic data bases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers, results were compared and disagreements resolved. Included papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Remaining studies had their data independently extracted by one of five reviewers and checked by another reviewer. RESULTS: From 1,580 abstracts and titles 15 studies were included. These were of moderate to poor quality. The large amount of heterogeneity in design and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. However, all studies reported that unilateral cochlear implants improved scores on all outcome measures. Additionally five economic evaluations found unilateral cochlear implants to be cost-effective for profoundly deaf children at UK implant centres. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of systematic review methods gives weight to the positive findings of 15 papers reporting on this subject that they individually lack; while an RCT to show this would be unethical.
BACKGROUND: Annually an estimated 223 children in the UK are born with or acquire permanent profound bilateral deafness (PBHL >or= 95 dB). These children may gain little or no benefit from acoustic hearing aids. However, cochlear implants might enable them to hear. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To bring together the diverse research in this area under the rigor of a systematic review to discover the strength of evidence when comparing the effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants with non-technological support or acoustic hearing aids in children with PBHL. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic data bases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers, results were compared and disagreements resolved. Included papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Remaining studies had their data independently extracted by one of five reviewers and checked by another reviewer. RESULTS: From 1,580 abstracts and titles 15 studies were included. These were of moderate to poor quality. The large amount of heterogeneity in design and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. However, all studies reported that unilateral cochlear implants improved scores on all outcome measures. Additionally five economic evaluations found unilateral cochlear implants to be cost-effective for profoundly deaf children at UK implant centres. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of systematic review methods gives weight to the positive findings of 15 papers reporting on this subject that they individually lack; while an RCT to show this would be unethical.
Authors: Hannes Maier; Uwe Baumann; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Dirk Beutner; Marco D Caversaccio; Thomas Keintzel; Martin Kompis; Thomas Lenarz; Astrid Magele; Torsten Mewes; Alexander Müller; Tobias Rader; Torsten Rahne; Sebastian P Schraven; Burkard Schwab; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Bernd Strauchmann; Ingo Todt; Thomas Wesarg; Barbara Wollenberg; Stefan K Plontke Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: James H Clark; Nae-Yuh Wang; Anne W Riley; Christine M Carson; Rachel L Meserole; Frank R Lin; Laurie S Eisenberg; Emily A Tobey; Alexandra L Quittner; Howard W Francis; John K Niparko Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Ethan D Borre; Mohamed M Diab; Austin Ayer; Gloria Zhang; Susan D Emmett; Debara L Tucci; Blake S Wilson; Kamaria Kaalund; Osondu Ogbuoji; Gillian D Sanders Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-05-08