Meta-analysis of pediatric cochlear implant literature.

We analyzed published reports of the effect of age at implantation and the cause of and age at onset of deafness on speech perception benefit in children with cochlear implants, and compared these results with those of unreported trials of multichannel cochlear implants. Combining data from published and unpublished patient series was constrained by differences in test protocols between studies, but was made feasible by employing a meta-analysis in which data were converted into an ordinal classification scale that represented levels of communicative benefit. Results showed that more rapid gains in speech perception are associated with earlier age at implantation, and that speech perception results are independent of cause of or age at onset of deafness after 1 year of implant use. Moreover, with minor exceptions, there was no statistical difference between published and unpublished data, thereby indicating no publication bias in the literature. A meta-analytic approach is useful because it can clarify the quality of reported data and the direction of future research and, hopefully, foster collaboration in conducting and reporting future research. A standardized approach to reporting results in children is advised in order to produce a balanced interpretation of implant benefit and to facilitate wider understanding and dissemination of study conclusions.

[1]  L F Burmeister,et al.  A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature vs individual patient data. Paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage. , 1995, JAMA.

[2]  S. Staller,et al.  Pediatric performance with the Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system. , 1991, The American journal of otology.

[3]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Variables affecting implant performance in children , 1994, The Laryngoscope.

[4]  Lloyd D. Fisher,et al.  Biostatistics: A Methodology for the Health Sciences , 1993 .

[5]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Prelingually deafened children's performance with the nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. , 1993, The American journal of otology.

[6]  Richard S. Tyler,et al.  Cochlear Implantation: Relationships with Research on Auditory Deprivation and Acclimatization , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[7]  L. Stewart,et al.  From science to practice. Meta-analyses using individual patient data are needed. , 1995 .

[8]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Performance comparisons in congenitally deaf children with different ages of implantation. , 1995, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[9]  G. Woodworth,et al.  Results of multichannel cochlear implants in congenital and acquired prelingual deafness in children: five-year follow-up. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[10]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Long-term results of early cochlear implantation in congenitally and prelingually deafened children. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[11]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Effect of Age at Onset of Deafness on Children's Speech Perception Abilities with a Cochlear Implant , 1991, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[12]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Use of a multichannel cochlear implant in the congenitally and prelingually deaf population , 1992, The Laryngoscope.

[13]  A E Geers,et al.  Predicting spoken language acquisition of profoundly hearing-impaired children. , 1987, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[14]  E. Domico,et al.  Speech perception after multichannel cochlear implantation in the pediatric patient. , 1994, The American journal of otology.