ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical outcomes of adult patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) undergoing ipsilateral cochlear implantation. DATA SOURCE: An electronic search of Medline and Embase articles. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was performed with a search strategy developed by a licensed librarian to identify studies of adult patients with SSD who underwent ipsilateral cochlear implantation. Articles were managed in Covidence and evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed and data were extracted, including patient demographics, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, and postoperative change in speech recognition, tinnitus, sound localization, and quality of life (QoL). A meta-analysis was performed, and pooled mean differences were calculated for each outcome of interest via random effects models by each outcome, as well as subgroup analyses by the individual clinical score used. RESULTS: Of 2309 studies identified, 185 full texts were evaluated, and 50 were ultimately included involving 674 patients. Speech perception scores in quiet and noise, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL all significantly improved after implantation. Pooled outcomes demonstrated score improvements in speech perception (standardized mean difference [SMD], 2.8 [95% CI, 2.16-3.43]), QoL (SMD, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.45-0.91]), sound localization (SMD, -1.13 [95% CI, -1.68 to -0.57]), and tinnitus score reduction (SMD, -1.32 [95% CI, -1.85 to -0.80]). CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implantation in adults with SSD results in significant improvements in speech perception, tinnitus control, sound localization, and QoL.Level of evidence: 2.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing uses online platforms to collect large data from laypersons and has been increasingly used over the past 5 years to answer questions about aesthetic and functional outcomes following plastic and reconstructive surgery. This systematic review evaluates crowdsourcing articles in plastic and reconstructive surgery based on study topic, participants, and effect size in the hopes of describing best practices. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was developed with a licensed librarian and attending plastic surgeon to query all articles using crowdsourcing in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Covidence systematic review manager was used by two independent reviewers to import articles, screen abstracts, evaluate full texts, and extract data. RESULTS: A search run on October 8, 2021, yielded 168 studies, of which 45 were ultimately included. Craniofacial surgery and aesthetic surgery collectively constituted over half of studies. Participants in plastic surgery crowdsourcing studies are more commonly from the United States, female, straight, 25 to 35 years old; have completed college; and earn $20,000 to $50,000 per year. Studies typically assessed aesthetic perceptions, cost approximately $350, ran a median of 9 days, included approximately 60 unique survey items, and included approximately 40 unique human images. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing is a relatively new, low-cost method of garnering high-volume data from laypersons that may further our understanding of public perception in plastic and reconstructive surgery. As with other nascent fields, there is significant variability in number of subjects used, subject compensation, and methodology, indicating an opportunity for quality improvement.