153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15292776)
1. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults III: prospective evaluation of an actuarial approach to defining a criterion.
UK Cochlear Implant Study Group
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):361-74. PubMed ID: 15292776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness.
UK Cochlear Implant Study Group
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):310-35. PubMed ID: 15292774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis.
UK Cochlear Implant Study Group
Ear Hear; 2004 Aug; 25(4):336-60. PubMed ID: 15292775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model.
Bond M; Mealing S; Anderson R; Elston J; Weiner G; Taylor RS; Hoyle M; Liu Z; Price A; Stein K
Health Technol Assess; 2009 Sep; 13(44):1-330. PubMed ID: 19799825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for postlingually deafened adults.
Leigh JR; Moran M; Hollow R; Dowell RC
Int J Audiol; 2016; 55 Suppl 2():S3-8. PubMed ID: 26963131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intelligibility of the Patient's Speech Predicts the Likelihood of Cochlear Implant Success in Prelingually Deaf Adults.
van Dijkhuizen JN; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2016; 37(5):e302-10. PubMed ID: 26928004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Modeling open-set spoken word recognition in postlingually deafened adults after cochlear implantation: some preliminary results with the neighborhood activation model.
Meyer TA; Frisch SA; Pisoni DB; Miyamoto RT; Svirsky MA
Otol Neurotol; 2003 Jul; 24(4):612-20. PubMed ID: 12851554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cochlear implantation in late-implanted prelingually deafened adults: changes in quality of life.
Straatman LV; Huinck WJ; Langereis MC; Snik AF; Mulder JJ
Otol Neurotol; 2014 Feb; 35(2):253-9. PubMed ID: 24448285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation.
Summerfield AQ; Marshall DH; Barton GR; Bloor KE
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2002 Nov; 128(11):1255-62. PubMed ID: 12431166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cochlear implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplification: a European study.
Fraysse B; Dillier N; Klenzner T; Laszig R; Manrique M; Morera Perez C; Morgon AH; Müller-Deile J; Ramos Macias A
Am J Otol; 1998 Sep; 19(5):591-7. PubMed ID: 9752966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Bilateral cochlear implantation for hearing-impaired children: criterion of candidacy derived from an observational study.
Lovett RE; Vickers DA; Summerfield AQ
Ear Hear; 2015 Jan; 36(1):14-23. PubMed ID: 25170781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical relevance of quality of life outcome in cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults.
Klop WM; Boermans PP; Ferrier MB; van den Hout WB; Stiggelbout AM; Frijns JH
Otol Neurotol; 2008 Aug; 29(5):615-21. PubMed ID: 18451751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: an analysis of post-implant performance.
David EE; Ostroff JM; Shipp D; Nedzelski JM; Chen JM; Parnes LS; Zimmerman K; Schramm D; Seguin C
Otol Neurotol; 2003 Mar; 24(2):228-33. PubMed ID: 12621337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of lexical characteristics and demographic factors on mandarin chinese open-set word recognition in children with cochlear implants.
Liu H; Liu S; Wang S; Liu C; Kong Y; Zhang N; Li S; Yang Y; Han D; Zhang L
Ear Hear; 2013; 34(2):221-8. PubMed ID: 23086423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Speech intelligibility and subjective benefit in single-sided deaf adults after cochlear implantation.
Finke M; Strauß-Schier A; Kludt E; Büchner A; Illg A
Hear Res; 2017 May; 348():112-119. PubMed ID: 28286233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Survey of the American Neurotology Society on Cochlear Implantation: Part 1, Candidacy Assessment and Expanding Indications.
Carlson ML; Sladen DP; Gurgel RK; Tombers NM; Lohse CM; Driscoll CL
Otol Neurotol; 2018 Jan; 39(1):e12-e19. PubMed ID: 29210952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cochlear implantation of children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills.
Zwolan TA; Zimmerman-Phillips S; Ashbaugh CJ; Hieber SJ; Kileny PR; Telian SA
Ear Hear; 1997 Jun; 18(3):240-51. PubMed ID: 9201459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.
Firszt JB; Reeder RM; Holden LK
Ear Hear; 2017; 38(2):159-173. PubMed ID: 28067750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.
Peters BR; Litovsky R; Parkinson A; Lake J
Otol Neurotol; 2007 Aug; 28(5):649-57. PubMed ID: 17712290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
