Longitudinal Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implant: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- PMID: 36004817
- DOI: 10.1002/lary.30354
Longitudinal Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implant: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Objectives: To examine patterns of change and plateau in speech recognition scores in postlingually hearing impaired adult cochlear implant recipients. The study also examines variations in change patterns for different speech materials and testing conditions.
Study design: Used systematic review with meta-analysis.
Methods: Articles in English reporting speech recognition scores of adults with postlingual hearing loss at pre-implantation and at least two post-implantation time points were included. Statistically significant changes were determined by meta-analysis and the 95% confidence interval.
Results: A total of 22 articles representing 1954 patients were included. Meta-analysis of mean difference demonstrated significant improvements in speech recognition score for words in quiet (37.4%; 95% confidence interval [34.7%, 40.7%]), sentences in quiet (49.4%; 95% confidence interval [44.9%, 53.9%]), and sentences in noise (30.8%; 95% confidence interval [25.2%, 36.4%]) from pre-op to 3 months. Scores continued to increase from 3 to 12 months but did not reach significance. Similarly, significant improvements from pre-op to 3 months were observed for consonant nucleus consonant (CNC) words in quiet (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [33.8%, 40.4%]), hearing in noise test (HINT) sentences in quiet (46.5%; 95% confidence interval [37.0%, 56.0%]), AzBio sentences in quiet (45.9%; 95% confidence interval [44.2%, 47.5%]), and AzBio sentences in noise (26.4%; 95% confidence interval [18.6%, 34.2%]). HINT sentences in noise demonstrated improvement from pre-op to 3 months (35.1%; 95% confidence interval [30.0%, 40.3%]) and from 3 to 12 months (15.5%; 95% confidence interval [7.2%, 23.8%]).
Conclusions: Mean speech recognition scores demonstrate significant improvement within the first 3 months, with no further statistically significant improvement after 3 months. However, large individual variation should be expected and future research is needed to explain the sources of these individual differences. Laryngoscope, 133:1014-1024, 2023.
Keywords: cochlear implants; longitudinal; meta-analysis; postlingual hearing loss; speech recognition; systematic review.
© 2022 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Similar articles
-
The relationships between cochlear nerve health and AzBio sentence scores in quiet and noise in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users.medRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 Apr 28:2024.11.16.24317332. doi: 10.1101/2024.11.16.24317332. medRxiv. 2025. PMID: 39606331 Free PMC article. Preprint.
-
Speech Outcomes of Cochlear Implantation, from 1983 to Present: A Systematic Review.Otol Neurotol. 2025 Apr 1;46(4):393-404. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004468. Epub 2025 Feb 28. Otol Neurotol. 2025. PMID: 40077839
-
Impact of Patient Frailty on Speech Recognition and Quality of Life Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users.Otol Neurotol. 2023 Aug 1;44(7):684-687. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003933. Epub 2023 Jun 29. Otol Neurotol. 2023. PMID: 37400136
-
Correlation Between Quality of Life and Speech Recognition Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation.Otol Neurotol. 2023 Dec 1;44(10):1015-1020. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004029. Epub 2023 Oct 10. Otol Neurotol. 2023. PMID: 37832582
-
Speech perception in Mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants: A systematic review.Int J Audiol. 2017;56(sup2):S7-S16. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1300694. Epub 2017 Mar 15. Int J Audiol. 2017. PMID: 28296526
Cited by
-
Spanish translation and validation of the Music-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (MuRQoL) in postlingually deaf cochlear implant users.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Sep;281(9):4575-4584. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08628-7. Epub 2024 Apr 26. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024. PMID: 38668790 Free PMC article.
-
Investigating the effect of cochlear implant usage metrics on cortical auditory-evoked potential responses in adult recipients post-implantation.Front Neurosci. 2024 Nov 20;18:1453274. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1453274. eCollection 2024. Front Neurosci. 2024. PMID: 39640296 Free PMC article.
-
Hearing health care access for adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients: Travel time and socioeconomic status.Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023 Jan 17;8(1):296-302. doi: 10.1002/lio2.1010. eCollection 2023 Feb. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2023. PMID: 36846426 Free PMC article.
-
Holistic assessment of cochlear implant outcomes using the international classification of functioning disability and health model: data analysis of a longitudinal prospective multicenter study.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Aug;281(8):4161-4173. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08600-5. Epub 2024 Apr 4. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024. PMID: 38573516
-
The Impact of Patient Factors on Objective Cochlear Implant Verification Using Acoustic Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials.Audiol Neurootol. 2024;29(2):96-106. doi: 10.1159/000533273. Epub 2023 Sep 8. Audiol Neurootol. 2024. PMID: 37690449 Free PMC article.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
- Naples JG, Ruckenstein MJ. Cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020;53(1):87-102.
-
- McRackan TR, Reddy P, Costello MS, Dubno JR. Role of preoperative patient expectations in adult cochlear implant outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(2):e130-e136.
-
- Harris MS, Capretta NR, Henning SC, Feeney L, Pitt MA, Moberly AC. Postoperative rehabilitation strategies used by adults with cochlear implants: a pilot study. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2016;1(3):42-48.
-
- Messersmith JJ, Entwisle L, Warren S, Scott M. Clinical practice guidelines: cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol. 2019;30(10):827-844.
-
- Carlson ML. Cochlear implantation in adults. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1531-1542.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous