Creating the evidence: Lessons from cochlear implants

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 16, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 515-522

  Fabry, David ^a  

^a Phonak Inc USA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Evidence based outcome; Hearing aid; Research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; DATA BASE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEARING AID; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW; SAFETY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEVICE APPROVAL; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644813659     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16.7.11     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Cheng AK, Niparko JK. (2000) Analyzing the effects of early implantation and results with different causes of deafness: meta-analysis of the pediatric cochlear implant literature. In: Niparko J, Kirk KI, et al, eds. Cochlear Implants Principles and Practices. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.
2. Cox RM, Alexander G. (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176-186.
3. Cox RM, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Dillon H, Bentler R, Stephens D, Arlinger S, Beck L, Wilkerson D, Kramer S, Kricos P, Gagne J-P, Bess F, Hallberg L. (2000) Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear 21:106S-115S.
4. Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997) Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8:27-43.
5. Djourno A, Eyries C. (1957) Prosthese auditive pa excitiation electrique a distance du nerf sensorial a l'aide d'un bobinage include a demeure. Press Medical 35:14-17.
6. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. (2001) Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1150-1163.
7. Gantz BJ, Turner CW. (2003) Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 113:1726-1730.
8. Hearing Industries Association. (2002) Guidelines for Hearing Aid Manufacturers for Substantiation of Performance Claims. Hearing Industries Association.
9. Kochkin S. (2000) Why my hearing aids are in the drawer: the consumer's perspective. Hear J 53(2):34-41.
10. Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Dobie RA, Haskell GB, Bratt GW, Shanks JE, Stelmachowicz P, Studebaker GA, Boysen AE, Donahue A, Canalis R, Fausti SA, Rappaport BZ. (2000) Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 284(14):1806-1813.
11. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan J. (1994) Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085-1099.
12. Osberger MJ, Maso M, Sam LK. (1993) Speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants, tactile aids, or hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 36:186-203.