Literature DB >> 31192902

General Health Quality of Life Instruments Underestimate the Impact of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation.

Theodore R McRackan1, Joshua E Fabie, Prashant N Bhenswala, Shaun A Nguyen, Judy R Dubno.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which bilateral cochlear implantation increases patient-reported benefit as compared with unilateral implantation and no implantation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases searches were performed using the keywords ("Cochlear Implant" or "Cochlear Implantation") and ("bilateral"). STUDY SELECTION: Studies assessing hearing/CI-specific (CI) and general-health-related (HR) quality of life (QOL) in adult patients after bilateral cochlear implantation were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Of the 31 articles meeting criteria, usable QOL data were available for 16 articles (n = 355 bilateral CI recipients). DATA SYNTHESIS: Standardized mean difference (Δ) for each measure and weighted effects were determined. Meta-analysis was performed for all QOL measures and also independently for hearing/CI-specific QOL and HRQOL.
CONCLUSION: When measured using hearing/CI-specific QOL instruments, patients reported very large improvements in QOL comparing before cochlear implantation to bilateral CI (Δ=2.07 [1.76-2.38]) and medium improvements comparing unilateral CI to bilateral CI (Δ=0.51 [0.32- 0.71]). Utilization of parallel versus crossover study design did not impact QOL outcomes (χ = 0.512, p = 0.47). No detectable improvements were observed in either CI transition when using HRQOL instruments (no CI to bilateral CI: Δ=0.40 [-0.02 to 0.81]; unilateral CI to bilateral CI: Δ=0.22 [-0.02 to 0.46]).The universal nature of HRQOL instruments may render them insensitive to the medium to large QOL improvements reported by patients using hearing/CI-specific QOL instruments. Given that HRQOL instruments are used to determine the economic benefit of health interventions, these measurement differences suggest that the health economic value of bilateral cochlear implantation has been underestimated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31192902      PMCID: PMC6578874          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  37 in total

1.  Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire.

Authors:  J B Hinderink; P F Krabbe; P Van Den Broek
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Combining acoustic and electric stimulation in the service of speech recognition.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Rene H Gifford
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 4.  A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bilateral multichannel cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Authors:  L Crathorne; M Bond; C Cooper; J Elston; G Weiner; R Taylor; K Stein
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.597

5.  Stable benefits of bilateral over unilateral cochlear implantation after two years: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alice van Zon; Yvette E Smulders; Inge Stegeman; Geerte G J Ramakers; Veronique J C Kraaijenga; Simone P C Koenraads; Gijsbert A Van Zanten; Albert B Rinia; Robert J Stokroos; Rolien H Free; Johan H M Frijns; Wendy J Huinck; Emmanuel A M Mylanus; Rinze A Tange; Adriana L Smit; Hans G X M Thomeer; Vedat Topsakal; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  Hearing-in-noise benefits after bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation continue to improve 4 years after implantation.

Authors:  Rose J Eapen; Emily Buss; Marcia Clark Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?

Authors:  Natalie R Capretta; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

9.  Validation of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Ann E Perreau; Haihong Ji
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation with the nucleus cochlear implant in adults: 6-month postoperative results.

Authors:  Roland Laszig; Antje Aschendorff; Matthias Stecker; Joachim Müller-Deile; Steffen Maune; Norbert Dillier; Benno Weber; Matthias Hey; Klaus Begall; Thomas Lenarz; Rolf-D Battmer; Melanie Böhm; Thomas Steffens; Juergen Strutz; Thomas Linder; Rudolf Probst; John Allum; Martin Westhofen; Wolfgang Doering
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  4 in total

1.  Normative Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global Scores for Experienced Cochlear Implant Users from a Multi-Institutional Study.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 2.619

2.  Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Craig A Velozo; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

3.  Best Practices in the Development, Translation, and Cultural Adaptation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Hearing Impairment: Lessons From the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Instruments.

Authors:  Ariane Laplante-Lévesque; Judy R Dubno; Isabelle Mosnier; Evelyne Ferrary; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Role of Preoperative Patient Expectations in Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Priyanka Reddy; Mark S Costello; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.311

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.