Effectiveness of multi-channel unilateral cochlear implants for profoundly deaf children: a systematic review

Bond, M., Elston, J., Mealing, S., Anderson, R., Weiner, G., Taylor, R.S. , Liu, Z. and Stein, K. (2009) Effectiveness of multi-channel unilateral cochlear implants for profoundly deaf children: a systematic review. Clinical Otolaryngology, 34(3), pp. 199-211. (doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01916.x) (PMID:19531168)

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.

Abstract

Background: Annually an estimated 223 children in the UK are born with or acquire permanent profound bilateral deafness (PBHL ≥ 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 Search strategy: This examined 16 electronic data bases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies.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.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Taylor, Professor Rod
Authors: Bond, M., Elston, J., Mealing, S., Anderson, R., Weiner, G., Taylor, R.S., Liu, Z., and Stein, K.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > MRC/CSO SPHSU
Journal Name:Clinical Otolaryngology
Publisher:Wiley
ISSN:1749-4478
ISSN (Online):1749-4486
Published Online:28 May 2009

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record