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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 · Cited by 5,436
Cited by
Manca, A., Hawkins, N., & Sculpher, M. J. (2005) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.944 · Cited by 1,024
Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation
Zeng, F.-G., Rebscher, S., Harrison, W., Sun, X., & Feng, H. (2008) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2008.2008250 · Cited by 878
Fortnum, H. M., Davis, A., Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. H., Davis, A. C., Bamford, J. M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Hind, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7312.536 · Cited by 494
Screening and Management of Adult Hearing Loss in Primary Care: Scientific Review
Yueh, B., Shapiro, N., MacLean, C. H., & Shekelle, P. G. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.15.1976 · Cited by 450
Zeng, F.-G. (2004) · Trends in Amplification · doi:10.1177/108471380400800102 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, A. K.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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.