Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review

Kim, Jeong-Seo

doi:10.3390/ijerph17197043

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This would suggest that relatively small differences in baseline hearing heavily influence a screening tool's performance. Alternatively, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests traditional audiometric thresholds and WRS do not accurately reflect the health of the cochlea or central processing skills that may be utilized as surrogate markers for CICE (29)(30)(31)(32)(33). Therefore, differences in performance on external validation could be attributed to factors not currently being captured by routine audiograms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical application of five recently published cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluation (CICE) referral screening tools through external validation.Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary otology/neurotology practice.PatientsAdults who underwent CICE between December 2020 and September 2021.Intervention(s)CICE referral screening tools versus CI candidacy criteria.Main Outcome Measure(s)CICE screening tool performance, based on the ability to identify patients who met the CI candidacy criteria, was evaluated. CI candidacy criteria were defined as best-aided AzBio sentences at +10 signal-to-noise ratio and either 60% or less accuracy to reflect traditional criteria used in clinical settings or 40% or less accuracy (only patients 65 years or older) to reflect Medicare-eligible criteria.ResultsScreening criteria of proposed CICE referral tools vary widely across pure-tone average and word recognition scores. When screened by traditional criteria, the sensitivities and specificities of these referral tools varied from 40 to 77% and from 22 to 86%, respectively. When screened by Medicare-eligible criteria, sensitivities and specificities varied from 41 to 81% and from 24 to 91%, respectively. The screening tool proposed by Zwolan et al. (Otol Neurotol 2020;41(7):895–900) demonstrated the best overall performance for traditional (Youden's J, 0.37; sensitivity, 62%; specificity, 75%) and Medicare-eligible patients (Youden's J, 0.44; sensitivity, 66%; specificity, 78%). All screening tools performed worse on the validation cohort compared with their respective development cohorts.ConclusionsCurrent tools for determining CICE referral have diverse screening criteria. These combinations of pure-tone average and word recognition score are modestly successful at identifying CI candidates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, ANN/SUM amplitudes measured in those studies showed no statistically significant attenuation with simultaneous ES ( Koka and Litvak, 2017 ; Krüger et al, 2020b ). ANN is phase-locked activity evoked by low-frequency AS ( Kim, 2020 ). Therefore, at medium-high frequencies acoustic tests, ANN performs poorly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forward Electric Stimulation-Induced Interference in Intracochlear Electrocochleography of Acoustic Stimulation in the Cochlea of Guinea Pigs

Min

Lu²,

Chen³

et al. 2022

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) uses amplified sound by a hearing aid to stimulate an apical low-frequency region of the cochlea and electrical current from a cochlear implant (CI) to stimulate the basal high-frequency region. EAS recipients had significantly improved speech perception, music appreciation, and hearing function in noise compared to those relying on CI electrical stimulation (ES) alone. However, the interaction between basal ES and apical acoustic stimulation (AS) in the cochlea potentially affects EAS advantages. To investigate ES-AS interaction, we designed a system that recorded the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and the auditory evoked potential (AEP). We used an intracochlear electrode array to deliver ES at the basal cochlea and detect intracochlear electrocochleography (iECochG) generated from apical AS. Within iECochG, 3 or 6 dB (double or quadruple intensity of ECAP threshold) electric stimulation, 1 ms-forward ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS compared to 0 dB ES. Notably, 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS, while 3 or 5 ms-forward ES did not change the CAP amplitudes. The elevation in CAP amplitude of 40 dB/4 kHz AS induced by 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES was significantly lower than that in 20 dB/4 kHz AS. With 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES, AS frequency and stimulating electrode location have no significant impact on relative CAP amplitudes of 20 dB AS. These results suggest that the basal forward ES and the following apical AS could produce a cumulative effect on the auditory nerve response.

show abstract

“…The quality assessment of the case series included in this guide was assessed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies. Each study’s summary score was calculated as a percentage with four scoring categories: (1) poor, 0–25%; (2) fair, 26–50%; (3) good, 51–75%; and (4) excellent, 76–100% ( Kim, 2020 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exercise interventions in migraine patients: a YouTube content analysis study based on grades of recommendation

Reina-Varona

Rivera-Romero

Cabrera-López

et al. 2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide, engendering a high economic cost in developed countries. The adverse events related to pharmacological treatment use have increased interest in non-pharmacological interventions such as exercise. YouTube offers a public source of information for migraine patients regarding exercise interventions for migraine improvement. However, this information has not been validated to ensure the quality and validity of its content. Objective This qualitative content analysis study aims to review and evaluate YouTube videos regarding exercise for migraine. Methods A systematic review of the current evidence regarding exercise for migraine was performed to establish evidence classification and grades of recommendation with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network tool. The data sources were PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane, EBSCO, Google Scholar and Web of Science. The quality of YouTube videos on exercise in migraine was reviewed using the Global Quality Scale and DISCERN scale. Finally, the classification in grades of recommendation was used to evaluate the included videos in terms of the various exercise modalities. Results The classification into recommendation grades showed a grade B for aerobic exercise, yoga and changes in lifestyle behavior regarding exercise. A total of 129 videos were included. The healthcare and exercise professional authors produced higher quality videos with a significant statistical difference, although the alternative therapists and patients’ videos had a greater impact and a higher viewership based on correlation analysis. The evaluation of the videos based on the recommendation grades could only include 90 videos. 71% of these videos showed a B grade of recommendation, which corresponded to fewer than half of the total included videos. Conclusions YouTube needs higher quality videos on exercise for migraine, and healthcare and exercise professional authors need to improve their scoping strategies to acquire more views. The authors of YouTube videos should have better access to the best current evidence regarding exercise interventions in migraine.

show abstract

Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review

Cited by 13 publications

References 50 publications

External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability

External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability

Forward Electric Stimulation-Induced Interference in Intracochlear Electrocochleography of Acoustic Stimulation in the Cochlea of Guinea Pigs

Exercise interventions in migraine patients: a YouTube content analysis study based on grades of recommendation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About