| AHRQ technology assessment (2011) | Concluded unilateral cochlear implants effective for adults; bilateral implants provide added benefit for speech perception in noise (n=56 studies). |
| NIHR Technology Assessment (Bond et al., 2009) | Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants safe and effective for children and adults; bilateral advantage in noise; studies of moderate to poor quality (33 studies, n=848). |
| Gantz et al. (2018) | Longitudinal hybrid CI study (n=50) showed maintenance of functional low-frequency hearing for most and improved CNC scores post-implant. |
| Roland et al. (2016) | Prospective multicenter hybrid L24 study (n=50) with significant CNC and AzBio improvements at 6 months; adverse events included loss of low-frequency hearing in 22 subjects; 34 subjects had 65 adverse events; 34% did not maintain functional acoustic hearing; 10% explant rate. |
| Gantz et al. multicenter study (S8/S12/L24 series) | Multicenter series (n up to 87) reported 87% improved bilateral word understanding at follow-ups and significant CNC improvements. |
| Lenarz et al. (2013) | Prospective case series (n=66) reported preservation of low-frequency thresholds in a majority and significant improvements in speech recognition in quiet and in noise at one year. |
| Hybrid trial pooled/other single-arm studies (Gantz 2016; related trials) | Multiple single-arm and prospective studies report improved speech perception and patient satisfaction but risk of loss of residual hearing; heterogenous small studies with variable follow-up. |
| Marx et al. (2021) multicenter study | Prospective national multicenter trial in SSD/AHL (n=155 overall; CI group n=51) found CI improved quality-of-life measures (EQ-VAS, NCIQ) and tinnitus VAS; CI superior to CROS/BAHS on several metrics. |
| Systematic reviews (Peter 2019; Cabral Junior 2016; Kitterick 2016; Cohen & Svirsky 2019) | Generally report improvements in speech perception, localization, and tinnitus suppression with CI vs rerouting devices; limitations due to small, heterogeneous studies. |
| Colletti ABI outcomes (non-tumor vs tumor) | Retrospective series showed non-tumor ABI recipients had significantly better sentence recognition than tumor (NF2) patients (p=0.0007). |
| Literature reviews/meta-analyses of unilateral/bilateral CI | Multiple case series and meta-analyses support improved outcomes (speech perception, localization) with unilateral and bilateral CI in adults and children. |
| Legris et al. (2019) and other small comparative trials | Non-randomized trials indicate CIs can improve comprehension in specific listening conditions compared with rerouting devices; small sample sizes limit conclusions. |
| Systematic reviews on tinnitus outcomes (Peter 2019; Ramakers 2015) | Some patients experience tinnitus suppression after CI; results variable across studies with methodological limitations. |
| Cabral Junior et al. (2016) | Systematic review of CI for SSD (n=137) reported improvements in speech discrimination, localization and tinnitus suppression; heterogeneity limited pooling. |
| Technology assessments and professional society statements | AHRQ and professional societies conclude evidence supports CI effectiveness; recommend timely implantation where appropriate. |
| ABI literature (Noij 2014; Colletti series) | ABI established for NF2; case series suggest benefit in selected non-tumor indications though evidence is limited and heterogeneous. |