Cargando…

Frequency-Following Response (FFR) in cochlear implant users: a systematic review of acquisition parameters, analysis, and outcomes

PURPOSE: To characterize the acquisition parameters, analysis, and results of the frequency-following response (FFR) in cochlear implant users. RESEARCH STRATEGIES: The search was conducted in Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Ovid Technologies, PubM...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Venâncio, Leonardo Gleygson Angelo, Leal, Mariana de Carvalho, da Hora, Laís Cristine Delgado, Griz, Silvana Maria Sobral, Muniz, Lilian Ferreira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886122/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35081198
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021116
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To characterize the acquisition parameters, analysis, and results of the frequency-following response (FFR) in cochlear implant users. RESEARCH STRATEGIES: The search was conducted in Cochrane Library, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Ovid Technologies, PubMed, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and gray literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies on FFR in cochlear implant users or that compared them with normal-hearing people, with no restriction of age, were included. Secondary and experimental studies were excluded. There was no restriction of language or year of publication. DATA ANALYSIS: The data were analyzed and reported according to the stages in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), 2020. The methodological quality was analyzed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Divergences were solved by a third researcher. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one study was comparative, whose control group comprised normal-hearing people. The variations in acquisition parameters were common and the analysis predominantly approached the time domain. Cochlear implant users had different FFR results from those of normal-hearing people, considering the existing literature. Most articles had low methodological quality. CONCLUSION: There is no standardized FFR acquisition and analysis protocol for cochlear implant users. The results have a high risk of bias.