Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of the cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE literature search, review of article bibliographies, and consultation with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that reported (1) data on adults (age > or = 18 years) with bilateral, postlingual, profound deafness; (2) a health-utility gain from cochlear implantation on a scale from 0.00 (death) to 1.00 (perfect health); (3) a cost-utility ratio in terms of dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); and (4) at least 1 conventional statistical parameter (ie, SD, 95% confidence interval [CI], or P value). DATA EXTRACTION: From each study, we extracted the number of subjects, study design, health-utility instrument used, health-utility associated with profound deafness, health-utility gain from cochlear implantation, cost-utility of cochlear implantation, and reported statistical parameters. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted averages were calculated using a statistical weight of 1 per variance. Pooling 9 reports (n = 619), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults without cochlear implants was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.52-0.56). Pooling 7 studies (n = 511), the health-utility of profoundly deaf adults after cochlear implantation was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78-0.82). This improvement of 0.26 in health-utility resulted in a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Profound deafness in adults results in a substantial health-utility loss. Over half of that loss is restored after cochlear implantation, yielding a cost-utility ratio of $12,787 per QALY. This figure compares favorably with medical and surgical interventions that are commonly covered by third-party payers in the United States today.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andre Cheng (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: