Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
Cochlear implant procedure. Italian Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SIOeChCF) and Italian Society of Audiology and Phoniatrics (SIAF). Part 1: cochlear implants in adults.
СтатьяКлинические рекомендацииНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Berrettini Stefano, Cuda Domenico, Minozzi Silvia, Artioli Franca, Barbieri Umberto, Borghi Cristian, Cristofari Eliana, Conte Giorgio, Cornolti Davide, di Lisi Diego, Fetoni Anna Rita, Fiori Simona, Genovese Elisabetta, Girotto Giorgia, Majorano Marinella, Marsella Pasquale, Marzetti Emanuele, Nicastri Maria, Paludetti Gaetano, Quaranta Nicola, Trevisi Patrizia, Zanetti Diego, Cinquini Michela, Forli Francesca, Ghiselli Sara
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant (CI) is a well-established treatment for adults with sensorineural hearing loss and without benefit from hearing aids. The Italian guidelines date back 15 years; given the expansion of indications for CI, including single side deafness and asymmetrical hearing loss, it became necessary to establish updated guidelines.
METHODS: Thirteen experts and 2 patient representatives selected the key questions and drew up recommendations. The document was developed following GRADE methodology. The methodological team of the Mario Negri Pharmacological Research Institute performed systematic reviews for each question and supported the overall process.
RESULTS: Five key questions were identified and recommendations formulated, with subgroups and considerations on implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Though the systematic research of scientific literature found a scarcity of randomised trials and an overall poor conduct and reporting quality of primary studies and systematic reviews, strong or conditional recommendations in favour of CI have been formulated for different subgroups of patients. Further studies should enrol a larger number of participants and use consistent instruments to evaluate hearing outcomes, in order to increase the comparability of results and data pooling with meta-analysis.
METHODS: Thirteen experts and 2 patient representatives selected the key questions and drew up recommendations. The document was developed following GRADE methodology. The methodological team of the Mario Negri Pharmacological Research Institute performed systematic reviews for each question and supported the overall process.
RESULTS: Five key questions were identified and recommendations formulated, with subgroups and considerations on implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Though the systematic research of scientific literature found a scarcity of randomised trials and an overall poor conduct and reporting quality of primary studies and systematic reviews, strong or conditional recommendations in favour of CI have been formulated for different subgroups of patients. Further studies should enrol a larger number of participants and use consistent instruments to evaluate hearing outcomes, in order to increase the comparability of results and data pooling with meta-analysis.