Suppr超能文献

人工耳蜗植入受者中听力损失各种病因的患病率:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Prevalence of various etiologies of hearing loss among cochlear implant recipients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Petersen Niels Krintel, Jørgensen Anders W, Ovesen Therese

机构信息

a Department of Otorhinolaryngology , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus C , Denmark.

出版信息

Int J Audiol. 2015;54(12):924-32. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1091094. Epub 2015 Oct 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the etiology of deafness in cochlear implanted children and to address the question whether there is a need for more thorough diagnostics, especially concerning genetics.

DESIGN

Systematic review. Four databases were searched for studies (year 2000-2014) on cochlear implanted children (n > 100). Studies were excluded if etiology had influenced their inclusion criteria. Eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by three authors. The studies' description of diagnostic evaluation was categorized in three groups.

STUDY SAMPLE

Sixteen studies were included (5069 children).

RESULTS

The most common etiological categories were 'Unknown' 40.3% (95% CI 32.8 to 48.0), 'Non-syndromic' 22.4% (95% CI 17.1 to 28.2), and 'Postnatal' 11.3% (95% CI 7.2 to 16.2). Studies published after 2006 had a lower proportion of 'Unknown' etiology 35.3% (95% CI 28.0 to 42.8) than older 45.5% (95% CI 31.0 to 60.4). Important information was missing from several studies: 11 (69%) studies did not provide detailed description on diagnostic evaluation of the etiology of deafness and had a higher proportion of 'Unknown' etiology.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to ensure a higher level of comparability in future studies, we recommend agreement upon an international standard of diagnostics and the introduction of an international standard for reporting etiology.

摘要

目的

探讨接受人工耳蜗植入儿童的耳聋病因,并解决是否需要更全面的诊断,尤其是关于遗传学诊断的问题。

设计

系统评价。检索了四个数据库中关于人工耳蜗植入儿童(n>100)的研究(2000年至2014年)。如果病因影响了纳入标准,则排除这些研究。由三位作者独立评估纳入标准和方法学质量。将研究中对诊断评估的描述分为三组。

研究样本

纳入16项研究(5069名儿童)。

结果

最常见的病因分类为“不明”,占40.3%(95%置信区间32.8至48.0),“非综合征性”占22.4%(95%置信区间17.1至28.2),“产后”占11.3%(95%置信区间7.2至16.2)。2006年后发表的研究中,“不明”病因的比例为35.3%(95%置信区间28.0至42.8),低于早期研究的45.5%(9%置信区间31.0至60.4)。几项研究缺少重要信息:11项(69%)研究未提供关于耳聋病因诊断评估的详细描述,且“不明”病因的比例更高。

结论

为确保未来研究具有更高的可比性,我们建议就国际诊断标准达成一致,并引入病因报告的国际标准。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac20/4732452/cf99d0b60040/iija_a_1091094_f0001_b.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验