Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.

BACKGROUND: In electric-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant, the observed "mismatch" between perceived pitch and predicted pitch, based on the amended Greenwood frequency map, ranges from -1 to -2 octaves. It is unknown if and how this mismatch differs for perimodiolar versus lateral wall electrode arrays. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate if the type of electrode array design is of influence on the electric-acoustic pitch match. METHOD: Fourteen patients (n = 8 with CI422 + lateral wall electrode array, n = 6 with CI512 + perimodiolar electrode array; Cochlear Ltd.) compared the pitch of acoustic stimuli to the pitch of electric stimuli at two test sessions (average interval 4.3 months). We plotted these "pitch matches" per electrode contact against insertion angle, calculated from high-resolution computed tomography scans. The difference between these pitch matches and two references (the spiral ganglion map and the default frequency allocation by Cochlear Ltd.) was defined as "mismatch." RESULTS: We found average mismatches of -2.2 octaves for the CI422 group and -1.3 octaves for the CI512 group. For any given electrode contact, the mismatch was smaller for the CI512 electrode array than for the CI422 electrode array. For all electrode contacts together, there was a significant difference between the mismatches of the two groups (p < 0.05). Results remained stable over time, with no significant difference between the two test sessions considering all electrode contacts. Neither group showed a significant correlation between the mismatch and phoneme recognition scores. CONCLUSION: The pitch mismatch was smaller for the perimodiolar electrode array than for the lateral wall electrode array.

Automatic Localization of Cochlear Implant Electrode Contacts in CT.

OBJECTIVES: Determining the exact location of cochlear implant (CI) electrode contacts after implantation is important, as it helps quantifying the relation between CI positioning and hearing outcome. Unfortunately, localization of individual contacts can be difficult, because the spacing between the electrode contacts is near the spatial resolution limit of high-resolution clinical computed tomography (CT) scanners. This study introduces and examines a simple, automatic method for the localization of intracochlear electrode contacts. CI geometric specifications may provide the prior knowledge that is essential to accurately estimate contact positions, even though individual contacts may not be visibly resolved. DESIGN: The prior knowledge in CI geometry is used to accurately estimate intracochlear electrode contact positions in high-resolution CT scans of seven adult patients implanted with a CI (Cochlear Ltd.). The automatically detected electrode contact locations were verified against locations marked by two experienced observers. The interobserver errors and the errors between the averaged locations and the automatically detected locations were calculated. The estimated contact positions were transformed to a cylindrical cochlear coordinate system, according to an international consensus, in which the insertion angles and the radius and elevation were measured. RESULTS: The linear correlation of the automatically detected electrode contact positions with the manually detected locations was high (R = 0.98 for the radius, and R = 1.00 for the insertion angle). The errors in radius and in insertion angle between the automatically detected locations and the manually detected locations were 0.12 mm and 1.7°. These errors were comparable to the interobserver errors. Geometrical measurements were in line with what is usually found in human cochleae. The mean insertion angle of the most apical electrode was 410° (range: 316° to 503°). The mean radius of the electrode contacts in the first turn of the cochlear spiral was 3.0 mm, and the mean radius of the remainder in the second turn was 1.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS: With implant geometry as prior knowledge, automatic analysis of high-resolution CT scans enables accurate localization of CI electrode contacts. The output of this method can be used to study the effect of CI positioning on hearing outcomes in more detail.

The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in otorhinolaryngology: hardly any improvement since 1950.

BACKGROUND: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent the most valuable study design to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. However, flaws in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of RCTs can cause the effect of an intervention to be under- or overestimated. These biased RCTs may be included in literature reviews. To make the assessment of Risk of Bias (RoB) consistent and transparent, Cochrane published a RoB tool, with which RoB is assessed per item as "low", "unclear" or "high". Our objective was to provide an overview of RoB assessments of RCTs in otorhinolaryngology over time, and to identify items where improvement is still warranted. METHODS: We retrieved Cochrane reviews in the otorhinolaryngologic research field published in 2012 and 2013. We used all judgments per item as assessed by the review authors of the included RCTs. We evaluated the association between "low RoB" vs. "unclear and high RoB" and the year of publication (time strata: '<1990', '1990-1995', '1996-2000', '2001-2005', '2006-2012') per item using binary logistic regression. RESULTS: We extracted the RoB assessments from 42 Cochrane reviews that had included 402 RCTs (median number of RCTs per review: 7, range 1-40). In total 2,356 items were assessed (mean number of assessed items per RCT: 5.9, standard deviation 1.8). On binary logistic regression, RCTs published in 2006-2012, compared with those published before 1990, were more likely to have a low RoB for two items: random sequence generation (odds ratio 6.09 [95% confidence interval: 3.11-11.95]) and allocation concealment (3.59 [1.87-6.90]). On all other items, there was no significant increase in the proportion of low RoB when comparing RCTs published in 2006-2012 with RCTs published before 1990. CONCLUSION: Although there were some positive developments in the RoB assessments in otorhinolaryngology, a further decrease in RoB is still warranted on several items. Currently, biased RCTs are included in Cochrane reviews and effects of therapeutic interventions can be under- or overestimated, with implications for clinical patient care.

Effect of KTP laser cochleostomy on morphology in the guinea pig inner ear.

BACKGROUND: The main advantage of using the KTP (potassium-titanyl-phosphate) laser for stapedotomy instead of the conventional micropick instrument is the smaller risk for mechanical damage. However, the KTP laser could theoretically inflict damage to inner ear structures. We hypothesize that KTP laser light [wavelength (λ) = 532 nm] is hardly absorbed in perilymph but well absorbed in solid structures. The aim of this pilot study was to assess if damage occurred after KTP laser cochleostomy in an animal model and, if so, to what extent and at which settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six guinea pigs, a KTP laser cochleostomy at the basal turn was created. Laser settings of 1, 3 and 5 W and 100 ms pulse time (n = 2 each) were used. Histological preparations were studied for damage to neuroendothelial cells and intrascalar blood. RESULTS: No damage to inner ear neuroendothelial cells was observed, even at the highest power. Blood clots in the scala tympani from vessels in the cochlear wall were seen. The effects were minimal in the lowest, currently clinically used settings. CONCLUSION: KTP laser cochleostomy gives no damage to inner ear neuroendothelial cells but may cause intrascalar hemorrhages.

Choice of treatment evaluated after trial periods with bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in patients with single-sided deafness.

Objectives: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) may experience difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localization, have tinnitus and experience a reduced quality of life (QoL). contralateral routing of sound hearing aids (CROS) or bone conduction devices (BCD) may partly improve subjective speech communication and QoL in SSD patients. A trial period with these devices can help in making a well-informed choice of treatment. Our aim was to evaluate factors influencing the choice of treatment made after a BCD and CROS trial period in adult SSD patients. Methods: Patients were randomized in the: "first BCD, then CROS" or "first CROS, then BCD" trial period group. After the BCD on headband and CROS were tested for 6 weeks each, patients choose for BCD, CROS or no treatment. Primary outcome was the distribution of choice of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the association between the choice of treatment and patient characteristics, reasons for treatment acceptance or rejection, device usage during the trial periods, and disease-specific QoL outcomes. Results: Of 91 patients randomized, 84 completed both trial periods and made their choice of treatment: 25 (30%) BCD, 34 (40%) CROS, and 25 (30%) no treatment. No characteristics were found to be related to choice of treatment. Top three reasons for acceptance or rejection were: device (dis)comfort, sound quality and (dis)advantage of subjective hearing. Average daily device use during the trial periods was higher for CROS than for BCD. Choice of treatment was significantly related with both duration of device usage and greater improvement of QoL after the corresponding trial period. Conclusion: The majority of SSD patients preferred BCD or CROS over no treatment. Evaluating device usage, discussing treatment (dis)advantages and disease-specific QoL outcomes after trial periods are to be considered during patient counseling and could facilitate whether to choose one of these treatments. Level of evidence: 1B.

Short-term outcomes of cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness compared to bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound hearing aids-Results of a Randomised controlled trial (CINGLE-trial).

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.

Trial registration, publication rate and characteristics in the research field of otology: A cross-sectional study.

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.

Quality of reporting of otorhinolaryngology articles using animal models with the ARRIVE statement.

Research involving animal models is crucial for the advancement of science, provided that experiments are designed, performed, interpreted, and reported well. In order to investigate the quality of reporting of articles in otorhinolaryngology research using animal models, a PubMed database search was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. The checklist of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines was used to assess the quality of reporting of articles published in ear, nose and throat (ENT) and multidisciplinary journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to select articles reporting otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. ENT journals ( n = 35) reported a mean of 57.1% adequately scored ARRIVE items (median: 58.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI; 53.4-60.9%]), while articles published in multidisciplinary journals ( n = 36) reported a mean of 49.1% adequately scored items (median: 50.0; 95% CI [46.2-52.0%]). Articles published in ENT journals showed better quality of reporting of animal studies based on the ARRIVE guidelines ( P < 0.05). However, adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines is generally poor in otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. The endorsement of the ARRIVE guidelines by authors, research and academic institutes, editorial offices and funding agencies is recommended for improved reporting of scientific research using animal models.

The Sound of a Cochlear Implant Investigated in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant.

HYPOTHESIS: A cochlear implant (CI) restores hearing in patients with profound sensorineural hearing loss by electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. It is unknown how this electrical stimulation sounds. BACKGROUND: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and a CI form a unique population, since they can compare the sound of their CI with simulations of the CI sound played to their nonimplanted ear. METHODS: We tested six stimuli (speech and music) in 10 SSD patients implanted with a CI (Cochlear Ltd). Patients listened to the original stimulus with their CI ear while their nonimplanted ear was masked. Subsequently, patients listened to two CI simulations, created with a vocoder, with their nonimplanted ear alone. They selected the CI simulation with greatest similarity to the sound as perceived by their CI ear and they graded similarity on a 1 to 10 scale. We tested three vocoders: two known from the literature, and one supplied by Cochlear Ltd. Two carriers (noise, sine) were tested for each vocoder. RESULTS: Carrier noise and the vocoders from the literature were most often selected as best match to the sound as perceived by the CI ear. However, variability in selections was substantial both between patients and within patients between sound samples. The average grade for similarity was 6.8 for speech stimuli and 6.3 for music stimuli. CONCLUSION: We obtained a fairly good impression of what a CI can sound like for SSD patients. This may help to better inform and educate patients and family members about the sound of a CI.

Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are the most frequently published studies in literature. When randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted because of ethical or practical considerations, an observational study design is the first choice. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was developed to provide guidance on how to adequately report observational studies. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were 1) to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies of otorhinolaryngologic literature using the STROBE Statement checklist, 2) to compare the quality of reporting of observational studies in the top 5 Ear, Nose, Throat (ENT) journals versus the top 5 general medical journals and 3) to formulate recommendations to improve adequate reporting of observational research in otorhinolaryngologic literature. METHODS: The top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals were selected based on their ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors. On August 3rd, 2015, we performed a PubMed search using different filters to retrieve observational articles from these journals. Studies were selected from 2010 to 2014 for the general medical journals and from 2015 for the ENT journals. We assessed all STROBE items to examine how many items were reported adequately for each journal type. RESULTS: The articles in the top 5 general medical journals (n = 11) reported a mean of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.8%-72.7%; median 70.6%), whereas the top 5 ENT journals (n = 29) reported a mean of 51.4% (95% CI: 47.7%-55.0%; median 50.0%). The two journal types reported STROBE items significantly different (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngologic articles can considerably enhance. The quality of reporting was better in general medical journals compared to ENT journals. To improve the quality of reporting of observational studies, we recommend authors and editors to endorse and actively implement the STROBE Statement.

Systematic Review on the Trial Period for Bone Conduction Devices in Single-Sided Deafness: Rates and Reasons for Rejection.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the trial period of bone conduction devices (BCDs) for adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception up to August 15, 2016 for SSD, BCD, and their synonyms. STUDY SELECTION: In total, 523 articles were retrieved, of which 12 satisfied the eligibility quality criteria. Our outcomes of interest were: 1) the BCD implantation rejection percentage, 2) reasons to reject BCD implantation, and 3) possible prognostic factors predicting the trial outcome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: At critical appraisal, six studies (n = 471 patients) scored a moderate to high directness of evidence and a medium or low risk of bias and were selected for data extraction. Due to heterogeneity between studies, pooling of data for meta-analysis was not feasible. Therefore, results of studies were summarized per outcome: 1) after the BCD trial, 32.0 to 69.6% of SSD patients rejected BCD implantation, 2) the three main reasons for rejection were experiencing limited benefit from the device, patients fearing or being unfit for surgery and cosmetic aspects, 3) no clear prognostic factors predicting the trial outcome could be identified. CONCLUSION: Roughly half of patients rejected BCD implantation after a trial period. From the current literature it is unclear which patients could benefit most from BCD implantation. High level of evidence studies should be conducted to investigate possible prognostic factors that predict the BCD trial outcome.

Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables?

Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and a cochlear implant (CI) can compare the pitch of stimulated electrodes and acoustic tones. A pitch mismatch may negatively bear on the fusion of the signals from the two ears, which may limit auditory performance. We aimed to explore this mismatch, correlate it to performance, and finally to discuss its possible clinical consequences. Ten patients with SSD and a CI (Cochlear Ltd.) compared the pitch of electrical and acoustic stimuli. Patients had to choose one of two acoustic stimuli, with the pitch closest to the pitch of the electrical stimulus at electrodes 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19. The difference between the two acoustic stimuli iteratively decreased from 2 octaves to 1/8 octave, resulting in a "pitch match" per electrode. Furthermore, we computed the insertion angle of the CI electrode array based on high-resolution computed-tomography scans. Subsequently, we created frequency-place maps. The difference between our pitch matches and two references (the spiral ganglion map and the default frequency allocation by Cochlear Ltd.) was defined as "mismatch". We observed large intra- and intersubject variability. Following the tonotopic organization of the cochlea, we observed that the pitch matches decreased with increasing insertion angle. The pitch-matched frequencies were on average 2.0 and 1.3 octaves lower than the spiral ganglion map and the default frequency allocation, respectively. There was no significant correlation between performance (consonant-vowel-consonant phoneme recognition score) and mismatch (R2 = 0.06, P > 0.1). Given the methodological considerations, and the insignificant correlation between mismatch and performance, pitch matching results must not necessarily lead to a change in clinical fitting strategies.

Cochlear implantation in children with unilateral hearing loss: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature on cochlear implantation (CI) for children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched for articles up to June 29, 2015 for UHL, children and CI, and all of their synonyms. METHODS: After screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles, directness of evidence (DoE) and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed for the included articles. Study characteristics and data on our outcomes of interest (speech perception in noise, sound localization, quality of life, and speech and language development) were extracted. RESULTS: In total, 296 unique articles were retrieved, of which five articles satisfied the eligibility criteria. All of these articles were case series or case reports and had a low to moderate DoE and a high RoB. In these studies, heterogeneous findings were reported in small patient samples. Speech perception in noise and localization ability improved in most patients. Although only measured in one study each, quality of life and speech and language development improved. Most of these results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of CI in children with UHL, due to heterogeneous findings, small sample sizes, and the lack of high Level of Evidence studies. Based on the findings of this systematic review, cochlear implantation may be an effective treatment option in children with UHL. Laryngoscope, 126:713-721, 2016.

Fascia compared to one-piece composite cartilage-perichondrium grafting for tympanoplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of type 1 tympanoplasty with one-piece composite cartilage-perichondrium (CCP) grafts compared to temporalis fascia (TF) grafts for tympanic membrane (TM) closure and hearing improvement in adult patients with a subtotal TM perforation and chronic otitis media (COM). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Relevance and validity of selected articles were assessed. Studies that scored moderate or high on relevance were included, and relevant data for both outcomes were extracted. For the outcome of TM closure, absolute risk differences (RD), relative risks, and number needed to treat with their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated when possible. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,783 unique studies. Ten studies satisfied the eligibility criteria. Four studies of moderate validity showed RD ranging from 0.08 to 0.13 in favor of the CCP graft compared to the TF graft for TM closure 1 year or more postoperatively, but this was not statistically significant. Five studies of moderate to high validity showed no clinically relevant difference in hearing improvement between both intervention groups at a minimum follow-up of 3 months. The relative air-bone gap closure ranged from 5.7 to 11.5 dB in the TF group and from 8.9 to 12.7 dB in the CCP group. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of superiority of one-piece CCP grafting over TF grafting in type 1 tympanoplasty regarding complete closure of a subtotal perforated TM 1 year or more postoperatively or hearing improvement at a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Laryngoscope, 126:1662-1670, 2016.

Review: Bone conduction devices and contralateral routing of sound systems in single-sided deafness.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Systematically review the literature on the clinical outcome of bone conduction devices (BCD) and contralateral routing of sound systems (CROSS) for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases were searched up to April 7, 2014. REVIEW METHODS: All studies investigating BCD and CROSS for patients with SSD on speech perception in noise, sound localization, or quality of life were selected and critically appraised. RESULTS: In total, 46 articles were retrieved, of which six satisfied the eligibility criteria. Critical appraisal showed that five studies (n = 91) carried a moderate to high directness of evidence and a low to moderate risk of bias. Subsequently, study characteristics and outcome measurements were extracted. Due to large heterogeneity between studies, pooling of data was not feasible. Studies did not show a clear advantage of BCD or CROSS on speech perception in noise. BCD and CROSS lead to the same sound localization ability as the unaided condition. Quality of life did not differ significantly between conditions; however, subjective speech communication did improve. CONCLUSION: No high level of evidence studies compare BCD and CROSS in patients with SSD. Literature showed no beneficial effect of BCD or CROSS regarding speech perception in noise and sound localization. Subjective speech communication demonstrated a moderate improvement with BCD and CROSS. High evidence studies comparing all treatment options for single-sided deafness should be conducted.

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the 'gold standard' Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals. METHODS: On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type. RESULTS: We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.

Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in otorhinolaryngologic literature - adherence to the CONSORT statement.

BACKGROUND: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic ('ENT') journals. METHODS: Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types. RESULTS: Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%-94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%-76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%-76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6-38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.

Cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetrical hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical outcome of cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) or asymmetrical hearing loss (AHL). DATA SOURCES: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases from their inception up to December 10, 2013 for SSD or AHL and cochlear implantation or their synonyms. STUDY SELECTION: In total, 781 articles were retrieved, of which 15 satisfied the eligibility criteria. Our outcomes of interest were speech perception in noise, sound localization, quality of life (QoL), and tinnitus. DATA EXTRACTION: Critical appraisal showed that six studies reported on less than five patients or that they carried a low directness of evidence or a high risk of bias. Therefore, we extracted the data of nine studies (n = 112). Patient numbers, age, duration of deafness, classification of deafness, pure tone audiometry, follow-up duration, and outcome measurements were extracted from all nine articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because of large heterogeneity between studies, we were not able to pool data in a meta-analysis. We therefore summarized the results of the studies specified per outcome. CONCLUSION: There are no high-level-of-evidence studies concerning cochlear implantation in patients with SSD or AHL. Current literature suggests important benefits of cochlear implantation regarding sound localization, QoL, and tinnitus. Varying results were reported for speech perception in noise, possibly caused by the large clinical heterogeneity between studies. Larger and high-quality studies are certainly warranted.

Influence of laser-assisted cochleostomy on acoustically evoked compound action potentials in the guinea pig.

HYPOTHESIS: Making a cochleostomy with a laser can affect the inner ear function. BACKGROUND: Different types of lasers can be used to create a fenestration in the footplate of the stapes during stapedotomy. Because of variations in absorption spectra of the laser light in various tissues or fluids, each laser has its own characteristics and possible side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The basal turns of the cochleae of 20 guinea pigs were fenestrated using 4 types of lasers (thulium, KTP, CO2, diode; all groups n = 4). A control group (n = 4) was included to correct for the effects of the surgery alone. At 3 different time points, acoustically evoked compound action potentials (CAPs) were recorded at 5 frequencies and at different sound pressure levels. N1-P2 amplitudes were measured, and subsequently, thresholds were calculated. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to investigate differences between groups. RESULTS: There was a decrease in CAP amplitudes and an increase in CAP thresholds after cochleostomy with each laser. The increase in thresholds was significantly larger for higher frequencies. The thulium laser evoked the largest threshold shifts, the KTP laser the smallest with the CO2, and diode lasers in intermediate positions. Overall, there was an increase in latencies after treatment. CONCLUSION: Laser treatment on or near the cochlea can cause damage to the sensitivity of the cochlea for sound. The thulium laser seems to be the worst choice in this respect.