Clinical relevance of quality of life outcome in cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 615-621

  Klop, Willem Martin C ^a   Boermans, Peter P B M ^a   Ferrier, Marciano B ^a   Van Den Hout, Wilbert B ^a   Stiggelbout, Anne M ^a   Frijns, Johan H M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Cost utility; Effect size; Minimal clinically significant difference; Postlingually deafened; Predictive factors; Quality of life; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EDUCATION; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INTERVENTION STUDY; MALE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SENSATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; COST; DEMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITALIZATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DEAFNESS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MALE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 58149393503     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318172cfac     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ramsden RT. Prognosis after cochlear implantation. BMJ 2004;328:419-20.
2. Cray JW, Allen RL, Stuart A, et al. An Investigation of telephone use among cochlear implant recipients. Am J Audiol 2004;13: 200-12.
3. Osberger MJ, Fisher L. Preoperative predictors of postoperative implant performance in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000;185:44-6.
4. Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:582-9.
5. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, et al. Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;20:445-52.
6. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Davis AC. Cochlear implantation: demand, costs, and utility. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:245-8.
7. Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt JR, et al. A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1221-8.
8. UK Cochlear Implants Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear 2004;25:310-35.
9. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 2004;25:336-60.
10. Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. II: design, analysis and interpretation. BMJ 1992;305: 1145-8.
11. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002;40:113-28.
12. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999;8:208-24.
13. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415-22.
14. Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek BP. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:756-65.
15. Cheng AK, Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 125:1214-8.
16. Cohen J, ed. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988:567.
17. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
18. Sloan JA. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD 2005;2: 57-62.
19. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-92.
20. Beaton DE. Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:593-6.
21. Wright JG. Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care 2003;41:597-8.
22. Lemieux J, Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60: 448-55.
23. Klop WMC, Briaire JJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1982-7.
24. Frijns JHM, Briaire JJ, De Laat JA, et al. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 2002;23:184-97.
25. Briaire JJ, Frijns JH. New insights in the fitting strategy for adults and children. Paper presented at: 2003 Conference on Implantable Auditory Protheses; August 8, 2003; Pacific Grove, CA.
26. Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF. Intelligibility of Dutch CVC syllables and sentences for listeners with normal hearing and with three types of hearing impairment. Audiology 1995;34:260-84.
27. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702-22.
28. Statistics Netherlands. Available at: http://www.cbs.nl.htm. Accessed September 2, 2007.
29. Dutch Healthcare Authority. Available at: http://www.nza.nl/. Accessed July 8, 2007.
30. Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jonsson B, et al. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:39-48.
31. Cohen SM, Labadie RF, Dietrich MS, et al. Quality of life in hearing-impaired adults: the role of cochlear implants and hearing aids. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:413-22.
32. Hawthorne G, Hogan A, Giles E et al. Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: a prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program. Int J Audiol 2004;43:183-92.
33. Mo B, Lindbaek M, Harris S. Cochlear implants and quality of life: a prospective study. Ear Hear 2005;26:186-94.
34. Krabbe PF, Hinderink JB, van den Broek PB. The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:864-73.
35. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000;284:850-6.
36. Francis HW, Chee N, Yeagle J, et al. Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status of older adults. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1482-8.
37. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
38. Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1637-41.
39. Piette J, Wachtel TJ, Mor V, et al. The impact of age on the quality of life in persons with HIV infection. J Aging Health 1995;7: 163-78.
40. Maillet CJ, Tyler RS, Jordan HN. Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;165:31-48.
41. Van Dijk JE, van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, et al. Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 1999;38:109-16.
42. Heydebrand G, Hale S, Potts L, et al. Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults' spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:254-64.
43. Beers M, van Dijkhuizen J, Frijns-van Putten AAME, Frijns JHM. Testing the auditory perception of CI-users: does a speech-tracking procedure have additive value? Program and Abstracts of the 7th Cochlear Implant Conference 2002; Manchester, U.K.