Outcomes of attempted hearing preservation after cochlear implantation (HPCI): a prognostic factor (PF) systematic review of the literature.

IF 1.4 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Mark Sladen, Jaya Nichani, Karolina Kluk-de Kort, Haroon Saeed, Iain A Bruce
{"title":"Outcomes of attempted hearing preservation after cochlear implantation (HPCI): a prognostic factor (PF) systematic review of the literature.","authors":"Mark Sladen, Jaya Nichani, Karolina Kluk-de Kort, Haroon Saeed, Iain A Bruce","doi":"10.1080/14670100.2025.2457197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There's a need to highlight prognostic factors (PFs) determining hearing preservation in cochlear implantation (HPCI), as currently there is large variability in outcomes. Given the potential benefits of HPCI, it is important to understand the factors influencing this variation. We apply a novel methodology to outline and assess the accuracy of prognostic factors reporting for HPCI.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analyses compliant systematic review, searches applied to Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>The CHARMS-PF tool assessed the strength of PF study designs.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>The QUIPS tool assessed for risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis and results: </strong>Ninety-two papers were suitable for data extraction. The domain's preoperative hearing loss, size of the round window opening, round window accessibility, surgical insertion speed and route (Round window or cochleostomy), electrode length and type were identifiable exploratory PFs for HPCI. Overall, the study's heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded reporting by forest plots and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most exploratory PF studies for HPCI are hindered by the risk of bias. This systematic review identifies potential independent PFs which should be measured, and adjusted for, in future confirmatory studies using a multivariate analysis. This would determine the independent prognostic effects associated with HPCI while facilitating prognostic model development and the predict individual HPCI.</p>","PeriodicalId":53553,"journal":{"name":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2025.2457197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: There's a need to highlight prognostic factors (PFs) determining hearing preservation in cochlear implantation (HPCI), as currently there is large variability in outcomes. Given the potential benefits of HPCI, it is important to understand the factors influencing this variation. We apply a novel methodology to outline and assess the accuracy of prognostic factors reporting for HPCI.

Data sources: A preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analyses compliant systematic review, searches applied to Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane.

Study selection: The CHARMS-PF tool assessed the strength of PF study designs.

Data extraction: The QUIPS tool assessed for risk of bias.

Data synthesis and results: Ninety-two papers were suitable for data extraction. The domain's preoperative hearing loss, size of the round window opening, round window accessibility, surgical insertion speed and route (Round window or cochleostomy), electrode length and type were identifiable exploratory PFs for HPCI. Overall, the study's heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded reporting by forest plots and meta-analysis.

Conclusions: Most exploratory PF studies for HPCI are hindered by the risk of bias. This systematic review identifies potential independent PFs which should be measured, and adjusted for, in future confirmatory studies using a multivariate analysis. This would determine the independent prognostic effects associated with HPCI while facilitating prognostic model development and the predict individual HPCI.

人工耳蜗植入术(HPCI)后听力保护的结果:一个预后因素(PF)的文献系统综述。
目的:有必要强调决定人工耳蜗植入术(HPCI)中听力保存的预后因素(PFs),因为目前结果存在很大的可变性。考虑到HPCI的潜在益处,了解影响这种变化的因素是很重要的。我们采用一种新颖的方法来概述和评估HPCI预后因素报告的准确性。数据来源:系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目,符合系统评价,搜索应用于Medline, EMBASE和Cochrane。研究选择:CHARMS-PF工具评估PF研究设计的强度。数据提取:QUIPS工具评估偏倚风险。数据综合与结果:92篇论文适合数据提取。域术前听力损失、圆窗开口大小、圆窗可达性、手术插入速度和路径(圆窗或耳蜗造口术)、电极长度和类型是HPCI可识别的探索性PFs。总体而言,该研究的异质性和偏倚风险排除了通过森林样地和荟萃分析进行报告的可能性。结论:大多数用于HPCI的探索性PF研究都受到偏倚风险的阻碍。本系统综述确定了潜在的独立PFs,这些PFs应该在未来的验证性研究中使用多变量分析进行测量和调整。这将确定与HPCI相关的独立预后影响,同时促进预后模型的开发和预测个体HPCI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Cochlear Implants International was founded as an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal in response to the growing number of publications in the field of cochlear implants. It was designed to meet a need to include scientific contributions from all the disciplines that are represented in cochlear implant teams: audiology, medicine and surgery, speech therapy and speech pathology, psychology, hearing therapy, radiology, pathology, engineering and acoustics, teaching, and communication. The aim was to found a truly interdisciplinary journal, representing the full breadth of the field of cochlear implantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信