Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of ‘first BCD, then CROS’; trial period of ‘first CROS, then BCD’. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial.

Objectives To examine 1) the publication rate of registered otology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2) the public availability of the results, 3) the study characteristics associated with publication, and 4) the time to publication after trial completion. Background Publication bias, the publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of results, is accountable for wrong treatment decisions. The extent of publication bias in otology trials has not been evaluated. Methods All registered otology trials were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov with completion date up to December 2015. A search strategy was used to identify corresponding publications up to June 2017, providing at least 18 months to publish the results after trial completion. Characteristics were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. Regression models were used to examine study characteristics associated with publication or non-publication. Results From the 419 trials identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, 225 (53.7%) corresponding publications were found in PubMed. Among these, 109 (48.4%) publications were cited on ClinicalTrials.gov and 124 (55.1%) articles reported the National Clinical Trial registry number. For 36 (8.6%) trials, results were only reported in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials with a biological intervention were more likely to be published than studies involving drugs (odds ratio (OR) 10.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–86.22, P = 0.030). Trials funded by industry were less likely to be published (OR 0.46, CI 0.25–0.84, P = 0.011). The median trial duration was 20 months (interquartile range (IQR) 26 months), and median time from trial completion to publication was 24 months (IQR 22 months). Conclusion In 37.7% of the registered otology trials the results remained unpublished, even several years after trial completion. With little citations on ClinicalTrials.gov and low reporting of the Clinical Trial registry number, the accessibility is limited. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in accuracy of trial registration and publication of results, in order to diminish publication bias in otology studies.

No abstract

Objectives: Clinical measures evaluating hearing performance in cochlear implant (CI) users depend on attention and linguistic skills, which limits the evaluation of auditory perception in some patients. The acoustic change complex (ACC), a cortical auditory evoked potential to a sound change, might yield useful objective measures to assess hearing performance and could provide insight in cortical auditory processing. The aim of this study is to examine the ACC in response to frequency changes as an objective measure for hearing performance in CI users.Design: Thirteen bilaterally deaf and six single-sided deaf subjects were included, all having used a unilateral CI for at least 1 year. Speech perception was tested with a consonant-vowel-consonant test (+10 dB signal-to-noise ratio) and a digits-in-noise test. Frequency discrimination thresholds were measured at two reference frequencies, using a 3-interval, 2-alternative forced-choice, adaptive staircase procedure. The two reference frequencies were selected using each participant's frequency allocation table and were centered in the frequency band of an electrode that included 500 or 2000 Hz, corresponding to the apical electrode or the middle electrode, respectively. The ACC was evoked with pure tones of the same two reference frequencies with varying frequency increases: within the frequency band of the middle or the apical electrode (+0.25 electrode step), and steps to the center frequency of the first (+1), second (+2), and third (+3) adjacent electrodes.Results: Reproducible ACCs were recorded in 17 out of 19 subjects. Most successful recordings were obtained with the largest frequency change (+3 electrode step). Larger frequency changes resulted in shorter N1 latencies and larger N1-P2 amplitudes. In both unilaterally and bilaterally deaf subjects, the N1 latency and N1-P2 amplitude of the CI ears correlated to speech perception as well as frequency discrimination, that is, short latencies and large amplitudes were indicative of better speech perception and better frequency discrimination. No significant differences in ACC latencies or amplitudes were found between the CI ears of the unilaterally and bilaterally deaf subjects, but the CI ears of the unilaterally deaf subjects showed substantially longer latencies and smaller amplitudes than their contralateral normal-hearing ears. Conclusions:The ACC latency and amplitude evoked by tone frequency changes correlate well to frequency discrimination and speech perception capabilities of CI users. For patients unable to reliably perform behavioral tasks, the ACC could be of added value in assessing hearing performance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Spin refers to reporting practices that could distort the interpretation and mislead readers by being more optimistic than the results justify, thereby possibly changing the perception of clinicians and influence their decisions. Because of the clinical importance of accurate interpretation of results and the evidence of spin in other research fields, we aim to identify the nature and frequency of spin in published reports of tinnitus randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess possible determinants and effects of spin.Methods: We searched PubMed systematically for RCTs with tinnitus-related outcomes published from 2015 to 2019. All eligible articles were assessed on actual and potential spin using prespecified criteria.Results: Our search identified 628 studies, of which 87 were eligible for evaluation. A total of 95% of the studies contained actual or potential spin. Actual spin was found mostly in the conclusion of articles, which reflected something else than the reported point estimate (or CI) of the outcome (n = 34, 39%) or which was selectively focused (n = 49, 56%). Linguistic spin (“trend,” “marginally significant,” or “tendency toward an effect”) was found in 17% of the studies. We were not able to assess the association between study characteristics and the occurrence of spin due to the low number of trials for some categories of the study characteristics. We found no effect of spin on type of journal [odds ratio (OR) −0.13, 95% CI −0.56–0.31], journal impact factor (OR 0.17, 95% CI −0.18–0.51), or number of citations (OR 1.95, CI −2.74–6.65).Conclusion: There is a large amount of spin in tinnitus RCTs. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in reporting and interpretation of results. Awareness of different forms of spin must be raised to improve research quality and reduce research waste.