MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287951867

Auditory Brainstem Implantation for Adults With Neurofibromatosis 2 or Severe Inner Ear Abnormalities: A Health Technology Assessment.

2020· article· en· W4287951867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrainstemPsychological interventionNeurofibromatosisAudiologyGrading (engineering)Hearing lossRadiologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) is a rare genetic disorder that causes vestibular schwannomas to develop in both eighth cranial nerves. Almost all people with NF2 eventually become completely deaf as a result of progressive tumour enlargement or following surgical or radiotherapy treatment. Other rare abnormal conditions in the inner ears can also cause complete deafness. For people with either indication who are not candidates for cochlear implantation, auditory brainstem implantation is the only treatment option to restore some functional hearing. We conducted a health technology assessment of auditory brainstem implantation for adults with NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation, and patient preferences and values. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because the outcomes identified in our clinical evidence review were difficult to translate into measures appropriate for health economic modelling. We also analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation over the next 5 years in Ontario, including the device, presurgical assessment, surgical procedure, and postsurgical rehabilitation. To contextualize the potential value of auditory brainstem implants, we spoke with six people with lived experience of NF2 and severe inner ear abnormalities. RESULTS: We included 22 publications (16 in NF2, five in severe inner ear abnormalities, and one in complications of auditory brainstem implantation) in the clinical evidence review. In adults with NF2, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: High), allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: High), and provides subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: High). It likely allows any degree of improvement in speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate) and may improve quality of life (GRADE: Low). In adults with severe inner ear abnormalities, auditory brainstem implantation when compared with no intervention likely allows any degree of improvement in sound recognition (GRADE: Moderate) and in any speech perception when using the implant alone (GRADE: Moderate). It may allow any degree of improvement in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading (GRADE: Low), provide subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Low), and improve quality of life (GRADE: Low).We did not identify any economic studies on auditory brainstem implantation for adults with NF2 or adults with deafness due to severe inner ear abnormalities. We estimated that the annual net budget impact of publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation in Ontario over the next 5 years would range from about $130,000 in year 1 for two procedures to about $260,000 in year 5 for four procedures.People with whom we spoke who had received an auditory brainstem implant reported that it restored some hearing ability and improved their quality of life, though they also reported ongoing challenges in using the device or side effects from the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with no intervention, auditory brainstem implantation provides some benefit for completely deaf adults with NF2 or severe inner ear abnormalities who are not candidates for cochlear implantation. Based on evidence of moderate to high quality, auditory brainstem implants allow any degree of improvement in sound recognition and in speech perception when used in conjunction with lip-reading for people with NF2. The quality of evidence on these outcomes was low to moderate for people with severe inner ear abnormalities. These functional outcomes lead to subjective benefits of hearing which are consistently reported in the literature and in interviews with patients. We were unable to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. We estimate that publicly funding auditory brainstem implantation in Ontario would result in additional costs of about $130,000 to $260,000 annually over the next 5 years.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.171
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.171
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.014
Bibliometrics0.0150.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207