Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant in Children

Cheng, André K.·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Barriers to the use of cochlear implants in children with profound deafness include device costs, difficulty assessing benefit, and lack of data to compare the implant with other medical interventions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of life and cost consequences for deaf children who receive a cochlear implant. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using preintervention, postintervention, and cross-sectional surveys conducted from July 1998 to May 2000. SETTING: Hearing clinic at a US academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of 78 profoundly deaf children (average age, 7.5 years) who received cochlear implants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct and total cost to society per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using the time-trade-off (TTO), visual analog scale (VAS), and Health Utilities Index-Mark III (HUI), discounting costs and benefits 3% annually. Parents rated their child's health state at the time of the survey and immediately before and 1 year before implantation. RESULTS: Recipients had an average of 1.9 years of implant use. Mean VAS scores increased by 0. 27, from 0.59 before implantation to 0.86 at survey. In a subset of participants, TTO scores increased by 0.22, from 0.75 to 0.97 (n = 40) and HUI scores increased by 0.39, from 0.25 to 0.64 (n = 22). Quality-of-life scores were no different 1 year before and immediately before implantation. Discounted direct costs were $60,228, yielding $9,029 per QALY using the TTO, $7,500 per QALY using the VAS, and $5,197 per QALY using the HUI. Including indirect costs such as reduced educational expenses, the cochlear implant provided a savings of $53,198 per child. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implants in profoundly deaf children have a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable direct costs and appear to result in a net savings to society. JAMA. 2000;284:850-856

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.7.850

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, A. K.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-08-16
Volume
284
Issue
7
Pages
850
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2057594257
Cited by
279
References
2
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant in Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.7.850
The paper
Cheng, A. K. (2000). Cost-Utility Analysis of the Cochlear Implant in Children. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.7.850

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.