Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of results of all studies included in the meta-analyses

From: Effect of cochlear implant surgery on vestibular function: meta-analysis study

Source (publication) Study design Follow-up (days) Number of patients Mean age (range) HIT
+ RE
Caloric
+ RE
VEMP + RE DHI+ RE CDP + RE
Abramides 2015 [18], Sao Paolo, Brazil Prospective study 120 24 42 (12–65)   Yes
P = 0.414
   
Basta 2008 [12] Berlin, Germany Prospective study 42 18 (10–75) Yes
ND
(NS)
Yes
ND
(NS)
Yes
P < 0.05
Yes
ND
(NS)
 
Bateucas 2015 [8] Salamanca, Spain Prospective descriptive 2 30 54 ± 10 Yes Yes    
Bonucci 2008 [15] Sao Paolo, Brazil NI* NI* 38 30.65 ± 32
4–62
  Yes
ND
   
Brey 1995 [14] Mayo clinic,Rochester, Minnesota NI* 45 to 1770 52 3-87   Yes
P = 0.01
   Yes
ND
Buchman 2004 [3] University of North Carolina, USA Prospectivestudy 30 67 2-87     Yes
ND
Yes
ND
Coordes 2012 [13] Berlin, Germany Prospective study NI* 17 60 (20–73)    Yes
ND
  
Ernst 2006 [30] Berlin, Germany Prospective study 365 18 18-62    Yes
ND
(NS)
  
Ito 1998 [31] Otsu, Japan NI* 30 55 >18   Yes
ND
   
Jutila 2012 [32] Helsinki, Finland Prospective study 60 44 55 (30–76) Yes
P > 0.05
    
Katsiari 2013 [2] Piraeus, Greece Prospective study 30 20 47.6 ± 20.2
10–77
  Yes
P = 0.01
Yes
P = 0.002
  
Kiyomizu 2000 [33] Miyazaki, Japan NI* NI* 23 36-75   Yes
ND
   
Kluenter 2009 [6] Fena, Germany Prospective study 42 31–368) 52 47(11–74)   Yes
ND
   
Kluenter 2010 [25] Fena, Germany Prospective study 44 (31–363) 24 51 (20–75)   Yes
ND
   
Krause 2009a [22] Munich, Germany Prospective study 28 - 42 59 54 (15–83)   Yes
P < 0.001
   
Krause 2009b [23] Munich, Germany Prospectivestudy 28 47 54 (16–83)   Yes
P < 0.01
   
Krause 2010 [24] Munich, Germany Prospectivestudy 60 32 55 (15–83)   Yes
P < 0.001
Yes
P < 0.047
  
Louza 2015 [34] Munich, Germany Retrospective observational study 28 - 42 41 >14
56 ± 19
  Yes
ND
Yes
ND
  
Melvin 2009 [5] Johns Hopkins, Maryland, USA Prospective cohort 28 - 42 16 46
(23–69)
Yes
ND
Yes
ND
Yes
ND
  
Migliaccio 2005 [10] Johns Hopkins, Maryland, USA Prospective study 28 - 42 16 46 (27–64) Yes
P > 0.05
    
Nordfalk 2014 [21] Oslo, Norway Prospective pilot 28 - 42 12 32-61    Yes
ND
  
Nordfalk 2015 [19]
Oslo, Norway
Prospective 42-56 39 57.5 ± 17.2
(18–83)
  Yes
ND
Yes
ND
  
Robard 2015 [11] Caen, France Prospective study 150 34 49 ± 25
(1–86)
   Yes
P = 0.0015
  
Rossi 1998 [35] Turin, Italy Case series 180 32 12-74   Yes
ND
   
Todt 2008 [36] Berlin, Germany Retrospective cohort 42 - 56 62 17-84   Yes
ND
Yes
ND
  
Vankatova 2014 [9] Geneve, Switzerland Retrospective study NI* 50 15-72 Yes
ND
Yes
ND
   
Wagner 2010 [17] Berlin, Germany Retrospective cohort 42 - 56 20 41.5 (11–58)   Yes
ND
Yes
ND
  
  1. HIT* head impulse test, VEMP* vestibular evoked myogenic potential, DHI* dizziness handicap inventory, CDP* computerized dynamic posturography, RE* reported effect, NI* not identified. ND* not detected, NS* non-significant, S* significant. RE* reported effect