Cargando…

Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To investigate the etiology of deafness in cochlear implanted children and to address the question whether there is a need for more thorough diagnostics, especially concerning genetics. Design: Systematic review. Four databases were searched for studies (year 2000–2014) on cochlear implan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petersen, Niels Krintel, Jørgensen, Anders W., Ovesen, Therese
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732452/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26642892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1091094
_version_ 1782412706611986432
author Petersen, Niels Krintel
Jørgensen, Anders W.
Ovesen, Therese
author_facet Petersen, Niels Krintel
Jørgensen, Anders W.
Ovesen, Therese
author_sort Petersen, Niels Krintel
collection PubMed
description Objective: To investigate the etiology of deafness in cochlear implanted children and to address the question whether there is a need for more thorough diagnostics, especially concerning genetics. Design: Systematic review. Four databases were searched for studies (year 2000–2014) on cochlear implanted children (n > 100). Studies were excluded if etiology had influenced their inclusion criteria. Eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by three authors. The studies’ description of diagnostic evaluation was categorized in three groups. Study sample: Sixteen studies were included (5069 children). Results: The most common etiological categories were ‘Unknown’ 40.3% (95% CI 32.8 to 48.0), ‘Non-syndromic’ 22.4% (95% CI 17.1 to 28.2), and ‘Postnatal’ 11.3% (95% CI 7.2 to 16.2). Studies published after 2006 had a lower proportion of ‘Unknown’ etiology 35.3% (95% CI 28.0 to 42.8) than older 45.5% (95% CI 31.0 to 60.4). Important information was missing from several studies: 11 (69%) studies did not provide detailed description on diagnostic evaluation of the etiology of deafness and had a higher proportion of ‘Unknown’ etiology. Conclusions: In order to ensure a higher level of comparability in future studies, we recommend agreement upon an international standard of diagnostics and the introduction of an international standard for reporting etiology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4732452
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47324522016-02-16 Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis Petersen, Niels Krintel Jørgensen, Anders W. Ovesen, Therese Int J Audiol Original Article Objective: To investigate the etiology of deafness in cochlear implanted children and to address the question whether there is a need for more thorough diagnostics, especially concerning genetics. Design: Systematic review. Four databases were searched for studies (year 2000–2014) on cochlear implanted children (n > 100). Studies were excluded if etiology had influenced their inclusion criteria. Eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by three authors. The studies’ description of diagnostic evaluation was categorized in three groups. Study sample: Sixteen studies were included (5069 children). Results: The most common etiological categories were ‘Unknown’ 40.3% (95% CI 32.8 to 48.0), ‘Non-syndromic’ 22.4% (95% CI 17.1 to 28.2), and ‘Postnatal’ 11.3% (95% CI 7.2 to 16.2). Studies published after 2006 had a lower proportion of ‘Unknown’ etiology 35.3% (95% CI 28.0 to 42.8) than older 45.5% (95% CI 31.0 to 60.4). Important information was missing from several studies: 11 (69%) studies did not provide detailed description on diagnostic evaluation of the etiology of deafness and had a higher proportion of ‘Unknown’ etiology. Conclusions: In order to ensure a higher level of comparability in future studies, we recommend agreement upon an international standard of diagnostics and the introduction of an international standard for reporting etiology. Taylor & Francis 2015-12-02 2015-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4732452/ /pubmed/26642892 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1091094 Text en © 2015 British Society of Audiology, International Society of Audiology, and Nordic Audiological Society
spellingShingle Original Article
Petersen, Niels Krintel
Jørgensen, Anders W.
Ovesen, Therese
Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732452/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26642892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1091094
work_keys_str_mv AT petersennielskrintel prevalenceofvariousetiologiesofhearinglossamongcochlearimplantrecipientssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jørgensenandersw prevalenceofvariousetiologiesofhearinglossamongcochlearimplantrecipientssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ovesentherese prevalenceofvariousetiologiesofhearinglossamongcochlearimplantrecipientssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis