Clinical Trial of the Clarion® Cochlear Implant in Children

Osberger, Mary Joe; Barker, Mary; Zimmerman‐Phillips, Susan; Geier, Lisa

doi:10.1177/00034894991080s418

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All scores were significantly better for the oral group, with the exception of 1 closedset test (Mr. Potato Head, words) in 1 41 (n = 36) of the 4 studies, which was not statistically significant.…”

Section: Speech Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Studies [39][40][41][42][43]45 report duration of cochlear implant use and age at assessment (details in Table 1). …”

Section: Language Results: Receptive and Expressive Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies (n = 10) reported multiple outcomes of interest, whereas 1 study 41 reported speech perception only (Table 3). As shown in Table 2, different metrics (eg, standard score, raw score, age equivalency, language quotient) were reported in different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four cochlear implant studies 39,[41][42][43] (1999 to 2002) specifically investigated speech perception and included 3 closed-set measures (response selected from defined word set) and 2 open-set measures (no word set available). All scores were significantly better for the oral group, with the exception of 1 closedset test (Mr.…”

Section: Speech Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT: Permanent hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and interferes with typical communication development. Early detection through newborn hearing screening and hearing technology provide most children with the option of spoken language acquisition. However, no consensus exists on optimal interventions for spoken language development. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of early sign and oral language intervention compared with oral language intervention only for children with permanent hearing loss.DATA SOURCES: An a priori protocol was developed. Electronic databases (eg, Medline, Embase, CINAHL) from 1995 to June 2013 and gray literature sources were searched. Studies in English and French were included. STUDY SELECTION:Two reviewers screened potentially relevant articles. DATA EXTRACTION:Outcomes of interest were measures of auditory, vocabulary, language, and speech production skills. All data collection and risk of bias assessments were completed and then verified by a second person. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to judge the strength of evidence. RESULTS:Eleven cohort studies metinclusion criteria, of which 8 included only children with severe to profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. Language development was the most frequently reported outcome. Other reported outcomes included speech and speech perception.LIMITATIONS: Several measures and metrics were reported across studies, and descriptions of interventions were sometimes unclear.CONCLUSIONS: Very limited, and hence insufficient, high-quality evidence exists to determine whethersign language in combination with oral language is more effective than oral language therapy alone. More research is needed to supplement the evidence base. Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; b Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; c Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; d Translational Research in Biomedicine Graduate Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; f Consultant, Moncton, New Brunswick; g Audiology Clinic, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and h Voice for Hearing-Impaired Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dr Fitzpatrick conceptualized the project, fi nalized the protocol, was involved in all stages of the analysis and interpretation, wrote the fi rst draft of this manuscript, and is the study guarantor; Ms Hamel and Ms Pratt were involved in screening articles and extracted data; Ms Hamel conducted the quality assessment; Ms Hamel, Ms Pratt, Ms Stevens, and Dr Moher provided input into the fi nal manuscript; Ms Stevens contributed to the development of the methods, oversaw the screening, Early detection of permanent childhood hearing loss through population-based newborn screening has become standard care in much of the world. Expectations are that early intervention through hearing technolog...

show abstract

Section: Speech Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Studies [39][40][41][42][43]45 report duration of cochlear implant use and age at assessment (details in Table 1). …”

Section: Language Results: Receptive and Expressive Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Speech Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gantz et al, 1994;Fryauf-Bertschy et al, 1997;Snik et al, 1997;Tyler et al, 1997;Waltzman & Cohen, 1998Lenarz et al, 1999;Nikolopoulos et al, 1999;Osberger et al, 1999). In the present study we take a novel approach, the use of binary partitioning to optimally divide our datasets on the basis of age at implantation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of age of cochlear implantation on speech perception outcomes in prelingually deaf children

Harrison

Panesar

El‐Hakim

et al. 2001

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have made a retrospective analysis on 70 prelingually deaf children (78% congenital; age range 2-15 years) followed for up to 5 years post-implant during which both closed set speech perception tests (TAC, WIPI) and open set tasks (PBK, GASP) were administered. We used a binary partitioning algorithm to optimally divide our dataset on the basis of age at implantation This technique achieves an optimal split when the heterogeneity of the data is most reduced (maximal drop in deviance). For the closed set speech perception tests (TAC and WIPI) partitioning best divided-out data at age 4.4 years. For the open set tests optimal division was at a higher age of implantation (GASP word, 5.6 years; PBK word, 8.4 years). Using these partitioning values, we have found statistically signi cant differences between rate of improvement of scores in the younger implanted children compared with those implanted later.

show abstract

Binary partitioning for continuous longitudinal data: categorizing a prognostic variable

Abdolell

LeBlanc

Stephens

et al. 2002

Statistics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate a binary partitioning algorithm in the case of a continuous repeated measures outcome. The procedure is based on the use of the likelihood ratio statistic to evaluate the performance of individual splits. The procedure partitions a set of longitudinal data into two mutually exclusive groups based on an optimal split of a continuous prognostic variable. A permutation test is used to assess the level of significance associated with the optimal split, and a bootstrap confidence interval is obtained for the optimal split.

show abstract

Clinical Trial of the Clarion® Cochlear Implant in Children

Cited by 24 publications

References 2 publications

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

Sign Language and Spoken Language for Children With Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

The effects of age of cochlear implantation on speech perception outcomes in prelingually deaf children

Binary partitioning for continuous longitudinal data: categorizing a prognostic variable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About