Literature DB >> 32407461

Association of Patient-Related Factors With Adult Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Meta-analysis.

Elise E Zhao1, James R Dornhoffer1, Catherine Loftus1, Shaun A Nguyen1, Ted A Meyer1, Judy R Dubno1, Theodore R McRackan1.   

Abstract

Importance: Multiple studies have evaluated associations between post-cochlear implant (CI) speech recognition outcomes and patient-related factors. Current literature often appears equivocal or contradictory, so little is known about the factors that contribute to successful speech recognition outcomes with CIs. Objective: To use a meta-analysis to pool data from the extant literature and provide an objective summary of existing evidence on associations of patient-related factors and CI speech recognition outcomes. Data Sources: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases in January 2019 using the following search terms: cochlear implant or cochlear implants or cochlear implantation and speech recognition or word recognition or sentence recognition. Studies of postlingually deafened adult CI recipients that reported word or sentence recognition scores were included. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were postlingual adult CI recipients 18 years or older with word or sentence recognition scores at minimum 6-month postimplantation. Studies that included patients undergoing revision or reimplantation surgery were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 1809 unique articles underwent review by abstract, and 121 articles underwent full-text review, resulting in 13 articles of 1095 patients for a meta-analysis of correlations. Random-effects model was used when the heterogeneity test yielded a low P value (P < .05). Main Outcomes and Measures: The planned primary outcome was the pooled correlation values between postimplant speech recognition scores and patient-related factors.
Results: Of the 1095 patients included from the 13 studies, the mean age at implantation ranged from 51.2 to 63.7 years and the mean duration of hearing loss ranged from 9.5 to 31.8 years; for the 825 patients for whom sex was reported, 421 (51.0%) were women. A weak negative correlation was observed between age at implantation and postimplant sentence recognition in quiet (r = -0.31 [95% CI, -0.41 to -0.20]). Other correlations between patient-related factors and postimplant word or sentence recognition were statistically significant, but all correlations were absent to negligible (r = 0.02-0.27). Conclusions and Relevance: Given that most associations were weak, negligible, or absent, patient-related factors often thought to affect CI speech recognition ability offer limited assistance in clinical decision-making in cochlear implantation. Additional research is needed to identify patient-related and other factors that predict CI outcomes, including speech recognition and other important variables related to success with CIs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32407461      PMCID: PMC7226297          DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2168-6181            Impact factor:   6.223


  49 in total

1.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; W S Parkinson; R S Tyler; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-07

2.  Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.

Authors:  J A Sterne; M Egger
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Effects of electrode location on speech recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; W H Slattery
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Relative importance of monaural sound deprivation and bilateral significant hearing loss in predicting cochlear implantation outcomes.

Authors:  Isabelle Boisvert; Catherine M McMahon; Geneviève Tremblay; Björn Lyxell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Authors:  M Egger; G Davey Smith; M Schneider; C Minder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

6.  Postlingually deaf adults of all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant.

Authors:  Edward Park; David B Shipp; Joseph M Chen; Julian M Nedzelski; Vincent Y W Lin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human.

Authors:  Takefumi Kamakura; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Predictive factors of speech understanding in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  C Dierickx; L Jacquemin; E Boon; A Dierckx; F Debruyne; J Wouters; C Desloovere; N Verhaert
Journal:  B-ENT       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.082

9.  HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Mary Joe Osberger; Phil Segel; Dorcas Kessler
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Hearing results with deep insertion of cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  A V Hodges; E Villasuso; T Balkany; P A Bird; S Butts; D Lee; O Gomez
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-01
View more
  14 in total

1.  Use of Auditory Training and Its Influence on Early Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Adults.

Authors:  James R Dornhoffer; Priyanka Reddy; Cheng Ma; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Are Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients Consistent Across Different Tests?

Authors:  Nicholas S Andresen; Varun Vohra; Deepa J Galaiya; Courtney L Carver; Dawn D Marsiglia; Jennifer D Yeagle; Francis X Creighton; Nae-Yuh Wang; Stephen P Bowditch; Charles C Della Santina; Daniel Q Sun
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 2.619

3.  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

4.  Understanding Patient Expectations Before Implantation Using the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-Expectations Instrument.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Brittany N Hand; Shreya Chidarala; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 8.961

5.  Cochlear implantation performance outcomes in patients over 80 years old.

Authors:  Helena Wichova; Dawna Mills; Sarah Beatty; Kevin Peng; Mia Miller
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-05-27

6.  Role of semantic context and talker variability in speech perception of cochlear-implant users and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Erin R O'Neill; Morgan N Parke; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nikolai Bernhard; Ulrich Gauger; Eugenia Romo Ventura; Florian C Uecker; Heidi Olze; Steffen Knopke; Toni Hänsel; Annekatrin Coordes
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-04

8.  Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; François Guérit; John M Deeks; Andrew Harland; Robin Gransier; Jan Wouters; Simone R de Rijk; Manohar Bance
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-01-25

Review 9.  A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-06

10.  Predictive models for cochlear implant outcomes: Performance, generalizability, and the impact of cohort size.

Authors:  Elaheh Shafieibavani; Benjamin Goudey; Isabell Kiral; Peter Zhong; Antonio Jimeno-Yepes; Annalisa Swan; Manoj Gambhir; Andreas Buechner; Eugen Kludt; Robert H Eikelboom; Cathy Sucher; Rene H Gifford; Riaan Rottier; Kerrie Plant; Hamideh Anjomshoa
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.