This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (31)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cochlear Implantation  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Quality of Life  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Meta-analysis

André K. Cheng, MD; John K. Niparko, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:1214-1218.

Objective  To conduct a meta-analysis of the cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults.

Data Sources  MEDLINE literature search, review of article bibliographies, and consultation with experts.

Study Selection  Studies that reported (1) data on adults (age ≥18 years) with bilateral, postlingual, profound deafness; (2) a health-utility gain from cochlear implantation on a scale from 0.00 (death) to 1.00 (perfect health); (3) a cost-utility ratio in terms of dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); and (4) at least 1 conventional statistical parameter (ie, SD, 95% confidence interval [CI], or P value).

Data Extraction  From each study, we extracted the number of subjects, study design, health-utility instrument used, health-utility associated with profound deafness, health-utility gain from cochlear implantation, cost-utility of cochlear implantation, and reported statistical parameters.

Data Synthesis  Weighted averages were calculated using a statistical weight of 1 per variance. Pooling 9 reports (n=619), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults without cochlear implants was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.52-0.56). Pooling 7 studies (n=511), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults after cochlear implantation was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82). This improvement of 0.26 in health-utility resulted in a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY.

Conclusions  Profound deafness in adults results in a substantial health-utility loss. Over half of that loss is restored after cochlear implantation, yielding a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. This figure compares favorably with medical and surgical interventions that are commonly covered by third-party payers in the United States today.

From the Listening Center, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

A Prospective Study of the Cost-Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant
Cynthia S. Palmer, John K. Niparko, J. Robert Wyatt, Margaret Rothman, and Gregory de Lissovoy
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(11):1221-1228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Active Middle-Ear Implantation in Hearing-Impaired Patients With Severe External Otitis.
Snik et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:1210-1215.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Restoration of Auditory Nerve Synapses in Cats by Cochlear Implants
Ryugo et al.
Science 2005;310:1490-1492.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Trends in Cochlear Implants
Zeng
TRENDS AMPLIF 2004;8:1-34.
ABSTRACT  

Screening and Management of Adult Hearing Loss in Primary Care: Scientific Review
Yueh et al.
JAMA 2003;289:1976-1985.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Cost-Utility Scenario Analysis of Bilateral Cochlear Implantation
Summerfield et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1255-1262.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Payment Under Public and Private Insurance and Access to Cochlear Implants
Garber et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1145-1152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant in Children
Cheng et al.
JAMA 2000;284:850-856.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT