Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 May/Jun;39(3):401-411.
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000495.

Use of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials for Cochlear Implant Fitting: A Systematic Review

Johan J de Vos  1 , Jan Dirk Biesheuvel  1 , Jeroen J Briaire  1 , Pieter S Boot  1 , Margriet J van Gendt  1 , Olaf M Dekkers  2 , Marta Fiocco  1   2   3   4   5 , Johan H M Frijns  1   2   3   4   5
Affiliations
Free article
Meta-Analysis

Use of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials for Cochlear Implant Fitting: A Systematic Review

Johan J de Vos et al. Ear Hear. 2018 May/Jun.
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: The electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) is widely used in the clinic as an objective measure to assess cochlear implant functionality. During the past decade, there has been increasing interest in applying eCAPs for fitting of cochlear implants. Several studies have shown that eCAP-based fitting can potentially replace time-consuming behavioral fitting procedures, especially in young children. However, a closer look to all available literature revealed that there is no clear consensus on the validity of this fitting procedure. This study evaluated the validity of eCAP-based fitting of cochlear implant recipients based on a systematic review of the recent literature.

Design: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used to search the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The term "eCAP" was combined with "cochlear implants," "thresholds," and "levels," in addition to a range of related terms. Finally, 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were evaluated on the risk of bias and, when possible, compared by meta-analysis.

Results: Almost all assessed studies suffered from some form of risk of bias. Twenty-nine of the studies based their conclusion on a group correlation instead of individual subject correlations (analytical bias); 14 studies were unclear about randomization or blinding (outcome assessment bias); 9 studies provided no clear description of the populations used, for example, prelingually or postlingually implanted subjects (selection bias); and 4 studies had a high rate of loss (>10%) for patients or electrodes (attrition bias). Meta-analysis of these studies revealed a weak pooled correlation between eCAP thresholds and both behavioral T- and C-levels (r = 0.58 and r = 0.61, respectively).

Conclusions: This review shows that the majority of the assessed studies suffered from substantial shortcomings in study design and statistical analysis. Meta-analysis showed that there is only weak evidence to support the use of eCAP data for cochlear implant fitting purposes; eCAP thresholds are an equally weak predictor for both T- and C-levels. Based on this review, it can be concluded that research on eCAP-based fitting needs a profound reflection on study design and analysis to draw well-grounded conclusions about the validity of eCAP-based fitting of cochlear implant recipients.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Akin I., Kuran G., Saka C., et al.Preliminary results on correlation between neural response imaging and ‘most comfortable levels’ in cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol, 2006). 120, 261265.
    1. Akin I., Mutlu M., Kuran G., et al.One-year results of the banded neural response imaging study. Otol Neurotol, 2008). 29, 635638.
    1. Alvarez I., de la Torre A., Sainz M., et al.Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear, 2010). 31, 134145.
    1. Arora K., Dowell R., Dawson PRamakrishnan S Dr.Cochlear implant stimulation rates and speech perception. In: Modern Speech Recognition Approaches with Case Studies (pp. 2012). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.215254).
    1. Borenstein MCooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C.Effect sizes for continuous data. In The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (pp. 2009). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.221235).

Publication types