Fig 1.
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Fig 2.
Years of publication of 201 included articles.
Fig 3.
Number of included articles per country.
Fig 4.
World distribution of countries of data collection for included articles.
Please note that Fig 4 was created in R version 3.5.2 [29], using the mapdata package developed by Becker & Wilks for the S software and adapted to R by Brownrigg [30]. This package uses the CIA World Data Bank II (https://www.evl.uic.edu/pape/data/WDB/) public domain data and contains approximately 2 million points representing the world coastlines and national boundaries.
Table 1.
Proportion of articles per continent included in the scoping review (n = 201 articles, including 1 article with dataset collected over 3 continents).
Table 2.
Frequency and journal impact factors of the 201 included articles.
Table 3.
Characteristic of populations targeted in articles with small sample sizes (n<10).
Fig 5.
Distribution of aetiologies across articles with small sample sizes (n <10).
Fig 6.
Onset of hearing loss as reported in 102 articles with ten or more eligible participants.
Table 4.
Mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum range of pure-tone average (PTA) hearing thresholds reported in the two most common frequency combinations across articles.
Table 5.
Distribution of pre-implantation aided speech perception tests reported across articles.
Table 6.
Preoperative mean speech perception score, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum range, as measured with the most common speech perception tests with the ear to be implanted alone.
Table 7.
Postoperative mean speech perception score, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum range, as measured on different tests with the cochlear implant (CI) ear alone.
Fig 7.
Postoperative speech perception performance in the CI ear alone compared with pre-operative performance for three outcome measures.
Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval.
Table 8.
Self-report measures of listening or quality of life identified across included studies.
Fig 8.
Pooled data from studies reporting on formal self-report outcome measures.
APHAB, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; CAP, Categories of Auditory Performance; GBI, Glasgow Benefit Inventory; HUI3, Health Utilities Index 3; HHI, Hearing Handicap Inventory; NCIQ, Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire; SSQ, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale. Error bars show weighted standard deviation.
Fig 9.
Individual change in speech perception performance in quiet for adults with pre- and postlingual hearing loss.