Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

How can we compare CI systems across manufacturers? A scoping review of recent literature

View ORCID ProfileElinor Tzvi-Minker, Andreas Keck
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.13.23291338
Elinor Tzvi-Minker
Syte Institute, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elinor Tzvi-Minker
  • For correspondence: elinor.tzvi-minker{at}syte-institute.com
Andreas Keck
Syte Institute, Hamburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Electric stimulation via a Cochlear Implant (CI) enables people with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss to regain speech understanding and music appreciation and thus allowing them to actively engage in social life. Three main manufacturers (Cochlear, MED-EL and Advanced Bionics “AB”) have been offering CI systems, thus challenging CI recipients and Otolaryngologists with a difficult decision, as currently no comprehensive overview or meta-analyses on performance outcome following CI implantation is available. The main goal of this scoping review is to provide evidence that data and standardized speech and music performance tests are available for performing such comparisons. To this end, a literature search was conducted to find studies that address speech and music outcomes in CI recipients. From a total of 1592 papers, 188 paper abstracts were analyzed and 147 articles were found suitable for examination of full text. From which, 42 studies were included for synthesis. A total of 16 studies used the consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition test in quiet at 60db SPL. We found that aside from technical comparisons, only very few publications compare speech outcomes across manufacturers of CI systems. Evidence suggests though, that these data are available in large CI centers in Germany and US. Future studies should therefore leverage large data cohorts to perform such comparisons that could provide critical evaluation criteria and assist both CI recipients and Otolaryngologists to make informed performance-based decisions.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding. Syte Institute received financial compensation for consultation to Cochlear, MED-EL and Abbott in the past.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

https://github.com/Syte-Institute/Publications/blob/6e8c92d0a70589e1ceefb34ba1134143d2cf1de9/230613_CI%20outcomes%20speech%20and%20music.xlsx

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 13, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How can we compare CI systems across manufacturers? A scoping review of recent literature
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
How can we compare CI systems across manufacturers? A scoping review of recent literature
Elinor Tzvi-Minker, Andreas Keck
medRxiv 2023.06.13.23291338; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.13.23291338
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
How can we compare CI systems across manufacturers? A scoping review of recent literature
Elinor Tzvi-Minker, Andreas Keck
medRxiv 2023.06.13.23291338; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.13.23291338

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Otolaryngology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)