{"title":"Speech recognition and speech audiometry parameters in evaluation of aural rehabilitation progress in cochlear implant patients. Review paper.","authors":"Przemysław Ryćko, Marek Rogowski","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0054.5438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Speech audiometry is well established and frequently used test in audiology as well as in cochlear implant recipient's performance evaluation. Expanding indications for cochlear implantation forces use of more refined methods of both assessment and prognosis of outcome of aural rehabilitation. Variability of speech intelligibility tests and materials require standardized protocol facilitating outcome comparison.<b>Aim:</b> Aim of this review paper is analysis of usage of speech audiometry and other speech intelligibility tests and its results reporting in patients with cochlear implant in Poland and in the World.<b>Materials and methods:</b> Protocols of many different domestic and foreign health centers where compared, showing many methodological differences. Selection of literature for analysis was made according to PRISMA algorithm recommendations. Twenty research papers were chosen for review process.<b>Discussion:</b> In many papers we found lack of data regarding methodology of performed tests. Many authors indicate difficulties in comparing results, especially if publication lacks basic technical information. Despite that if right method is applied, results can be compared. In literature only one level of material presentation in test is prevalent. Speech audiometry is significant in exploring connections between multiple pre-op and post-op prognostic aspects of cochlear implantation.<b>Conclusions:</b> Because of variability in presentation and reporting of CI patients outcomes, consensus is needed in area of system facilitating comparison of research results. This may provide simple solution for accurate analysis and choosing right set of data. Schematic of presentation of audiological data in authors health center was proposed as example.</p>","PeriodicalId":42608,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.5438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
<b>Introduction:</b> Speech audiometry is well established and frequently used test in audiology as well as in cochlear implant recipient's performance evaluation. Expanding indications for cochlear implantation forces use of more refined methods of both assessment and prognosis of outcome of aural rehabilitation. Variability of speech intelligibility tests and materials require standardized protocol facilitating outcome comparison.<b>Aim:</b> Aim of this review paper is analysis of usage of speech audiometry and other speech intelligibility tests and its results reporting in patients with cochlear implant in Poland and in the World.<b>Materials and methods:</b> Protocols of many different domestic and foreign health centers where compared, showing many methodological differences. Selection of literature for analysis was made according to PRISMA algorithm recommendations. Twenty research papers were chosen for review process.<b>Discussion:</b> In many papers we found lack of data regarding methodology of performed tests. Many authors indicate difficulties in comparing results, especially if publication lacks basic technical information. Despite that if right method is applied, results can be compared. In literature only one level of material presentation in test is prevalent. Speech audiometry is significant in exploring connections between multiple pre-op and post-op prognostic aspects of cochlear implantation.<b>Conclusions:</b> Because of variability in presentation and reporting of CI patients outcomes, consensus is needed in area of system facilitating comparison of research results. This may provide simple solution for accurate analysis and choosing right set of data. Schematic of presentation of audiological data in authors health center was proposed as example.