Association of Patient-Related Factors With Adult Cochlear Implant Speech Recognition Outcomes: A Meta-analysis.
Journal
JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery
ISSN: 2168-619X
Titre abrégé: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589542
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
3
3
2021
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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). The planned primary outcome was the pooled correlation values between postimplant speech recognition scores and patient-related factors. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32407461
pii: 2765789
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0662
pmc: PMC7226297
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
613-620Subventions
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : K23 DC016911
Pays : United States
Références
J Am Acad Audiol. 2011 Nov-Dec;22(10):637-43
pubmed: 22212763
Ear Hear. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):758-66
pubmed: 21750463
J Am Acad Audiol. 2000 Sep;11(8):418-28
pubmed: 11012237
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Oct;54(10):1046-55
pubmed: 11576817
Am J Otol. 1999 Jan;20(1):53-5
pubmed: 9918173
Audiol Neurootol. 2004 Jul-Aug;9(4):214-23
pubmed: 15205549
Am J Otol. 1999 Jul;20(4):445-52
pubmed: 10431885
B-ENT. 2016;12(3):219-226
pubmed: 29727127
Hear Res. 2016 Sep;339:132-41
pubmed: 27371868
Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12(4):254-64
pubmed: 17406104
Ear Hear. 1999 Aug;20(4):321-31
pubmed: 10466568
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):342-60
pubmed: 23348845
Ear Hear. 2016 Mar-Apr;37(2):153-63
pubmed: 26462170
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Dec;37(10):1662-1668
pubmed: 27755365
Audiol Neurootol. 2010;15(5):323-31
pubmed: 20203481
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Jun;40(5):617-624
pubmed: 31083083
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Oct;37(9):1238-45
pubmed: 27466894
Rev Med Liege. 2013 Dec;68(12):644-9
pubmed: 24564030
Ear Hear. 2016 Jan-Feb;37(1):14-26
pubmed: 26301844
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Feb;124(2):125-6
pubmed: 11226944
Am J Otol. 1993 Jul;14(4):357-61
pubmed: 8238271
Malawi Med J. 2012 Sep;24(3):69-71
pubmed: 23638278
Cochlear Implants Int. 2000 Mar;1(1):18-38
pubmed: 18791991
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Sep;38(8):e248-e252
pubmed: 28806334
Ear Hear. 2005 Aug;26(4 Suppl):7S-16S
pubmed: 16082263
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2019 Feb;46(1):58-63
pubmed: 29945747
Otol Neurotol. 2018 Dec;39(10):e1010-e1018
pubmed: 30444846
Otol Neurotol. 2018 Oct;39(9):1122-1128
pubmed: 30106854
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Aug;159(2):215-219
pubmed: 29557283
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995 Apr;165:9-14
pubmed: 7717634
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Oct;29(7):920-8
pubmed: 18667935
Laryngoscope. 2014 Nov;124 Suppl 6:S1-7
pubmed: 24764083
Laryngoscope. 2010 Jul;120(7):1391-6
pubmed: 20564720
Otol Neurotol. 2011 Apr;32(3):428-32
pubmed: 21283037
Front Neurosci. 2019 Jan 15;12:1056
pubmed: 30713488
Audiol Neurootol. 1996 Sep-Oct;1(5):293-306
pubmed: 9390810
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2002 Sep;3(3):332-50
pubmed: 12382107
Otol Neurotol. 2003 May;24(3):397-403
pubmed: 12806291
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Sep;37(8):1016-23
pubmed: 27348391
Ear Hear. 2002 Jun;23(3):207-23
pubmed: 12072613
J Int Adv Otol. 2016 Apr;12(1):1-7
pubmed: 27340975
Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(1):36-47
pubmed: 23095305
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Feb;116(2):163-7
pubmed: 9051058
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007 Oct;116(10):731-8
pubmed: 17987778
Sci Rep. 2018 Dec 20;8(1):18004
pubmed: 30573747
Otol Neurotol. 2009 Feb;30(2):146-52
pubmed: 19106769
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120