Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Cochlear implant in patients with autistic spectrum disorder–-a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction:

In cases of autism spectrum disorders with severe to profound hearing loss, cochlear implant is a therapeutic option.

Objective:

To identify evidence in the scientific literature that the cochlear implant brings benefits to people with autism spectrum disorders with associated hearing loss.

Methods:

Systematic review of the literature based on the criteria recommended by PRISMA. The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design, PICOS strategy, was used to define the eligibility criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria for this second stage were included in a qualitative synthesis. Each type of study was analyzed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute’s risk of bias assessment through the critical checklist for cohort studies, prevalence studies and critical criteria and case reports.

Results:

Four hundred and eighty-four articles were found in eight databases and 100 in the gray literature, mentioning the relationship between cochlear implants in patients with autism spectrum disorder and hearing loss. Twelve articles were read in full and 7 were selected for qualitative analysis in this systematic review. All seven articles were analyzed on the critical evaluation checklist. Four articles had a low risk of bias and three articles had a moderate risk of bias. In this study, were included 66 patients with autism spectrum disorder and hearing loss who received cochlear implant.

Conclusion:

This systematic review indicates that a cochlear implant can bring benefits to autism spectrum disorder patients with associated deafness.

KEYWORDS
Autism spectrum disorder; Autistic disorder; Cochlear implant; Cochlear implantations; Systematic review auditory

Resumo

Introdução:

Nos casos de transtornos do espectro autista com perda auditiva severa a profunda, o implante coclear é uma opção terapêutica.

Objetivo:

Identificar evidências na literatura científica de que o implante coclear traz benefí- cios para pessoas com transtorno do espectro autista com perda auditiva associada.

Método:

Revisão sistemática da literatura com base nos critérios recomendados pela lista de verificação do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A estratégia População, Intervenção, Comparação, Desfechos e Desenho do Estudo (PICOS) foi usada para definir os critérios de elegibilidade. Os estudos que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão dessa segunda etapa foram incluídos em uma síntese qualitativa. Cada tipo de estudo foi analisado de acordo com a avaliação de risco de viés do Joanna Briggs Institute através da lista de verificação crítica para estudos de coorte, estudos de prevalência e critérios críticos e relatos de casos.

Resultados:

Foram encontrados 484 artigos em oito bases de dados e 100 na literatura cinzenta que mencionavam a relação entre o implante coclear em pacientes com transtorno do espectro autista e deficiência auditiva. Doze artigos foram lidos na íntegra e 7 foram selecionados para análise qualitativa nesta revisão sistemática. Todos os sete artigos foram analisados de acordo com o checklist de avaliação crítica. Quatro artigos apresentaram baixo risco de viés e três artigos, risco moderado de viés. Neste estudo, foram incluídos 66 pacientes com transtorno do espectro autista e deficiência auditiva que receberam implante coclear.

Conclusão:

Esta revisão sistemática indica que o implante coclear pode trazer benefícios para indivíduos com transtorno do espectro autista e surdez associada.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Transtorno do espectro autista; Transtorno autista; Implante coclear; Implantes cocleares; Revisão sistemática auditiva

Introduction

There is an increase in the number of patients with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) who constitute a group of developmental disabilities characterized by social interaction and communication impairments. ASDs also present restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. Symptoms typically are apparent before age three years.11 Baio J. Prevalence of Autism spectrum disorders–-Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 14 sites, United States, 2008. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:1–19. A study conducted in the United States in 2012 showed that the prevalence of 14.5 per 1000 (one in 69). The estimated prevalence was significantly higher among boys (23.4 per 1.000) than among girls (5.2 per 1000).22 Baio J, Wiggins L, Christensen DL, Maenner MJ, Daniels J, Warren Z, et al. Prevalence of Autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years–-Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2014. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:1–28. There is still no official data on the prevalence of this health condition in Brazil. Individuals with autism differ markedly in the number and severity of symptoms displayed.33 Egelhoff K, Whitelaw G, Rabidoux P. What audiologists need to know about Autism spectrum disorders. Semin Hear. 2005;26:202–9. Typical signs of autism include but are not limited to speech and language delay, regression of developmental milestones at 18–24 months of age, avoidance of eye contact, tactile defensiveness, and engagement in repetitive and self-stimulating behaviors. Approximately 80% of children with autism have some degree of cognitive impairment.44 Fombonne E. The epidemiology of Autism: a review. Psychol Med. 1999;29:769–86.

In addition, some people with ASD may have associated hearing loss. Beers et al.55 Beers AN, McBoyle M, Kakande E, Dar Santos RC, Kozak FK. Autism and peripheral hearing loss: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:96–101. carried out a systematic review (SR) and found that the prevalence of hearing loss among individuals with ASD is controversial. Studies aim to find a higher incidence of hearing loss among people with ASD than in the general population.66 Rosenhall U, Nordin V, Sandström M, Ahlsén G, Gillberg C. Autism and hearing loss. J Autism 6. Dev Disord. 1999;29:349–57.88 Jure R, Rapin I, Tuchman RF. Hearing–-impaired autistic children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1991;33:1062–72. The authors also warned of the difficulty in generalizing the prevalence found, considering the studied sample’s limitations. A clear relationship was not found between the severity of autistic behavior and the degree of hearing loss.88 Jure R, Rapin I, Tuchman RF. Hearing–-impaired autistic children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1991;33:1062–72. Gravel et al.99 Gravel JS, Dunn M, Lee WW, Ellis MA. Peripheral audition of children on the autistic spectrum. Ear Hear. 2006;27:299–312. found no evidence of differences in the peripheral auditory system between children with ASD and their typically developing peers.

In cases where ASD and hearing impairment co-exists, diagnosis of one condition often leads to a delay in diagnosing the other.88 Jure R, Rapin I, Tuchman RF. Hearing–-impaired autistic children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1991;33:1062–72.,1010 Roper L, Arnold P, Monteiro B. Co-occurrence of autism and deafness: diagnostic considerations. Autism. 2003;7:245–53. The diagnosis of hearing loss may have obscured recognition of autistic behaviors added up five years.1010 Roper L, Arnold P, Monteiro B. Co-occurrence of autism and deafness: diagnostic considerations. Autism. 2003;7:245–53. It is recommended that children receive a com- plete audiological assessment when ASD is suspected. That way, the peripheral hearing loss can be diagnosed early and managed as part of the child’s habilitation and education program.55 Beers AN, McBoyle M, Kakande E, Dar Santos RC, Kozak FK. Autism and peripheral hearing loss: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:96–101.,77 Tas A, Yagiz R, Tas M, Esme M, Uzun C, Karasalihoglu AR. Evaluation of hearing in children with Autism by using TEOAE and ABR. Autism. 2007;11:73–9.,1010 Roper L, Arnold P, Monteiro B. Co-occurrence of autism and deafness: diagnostic considerations. Autism. 2003;7:245–53. The cochlear implant (CI) is a therapeutic option for cases of ASD with associated deafness. CI is the treatment of choice for children with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5. This implant is a high-tech elec- tronic device developed to perform the function of cochlear hair cells that are damaged or missing, intending to provide electrical stimulation of the remaining auditory nerve fibers.1212 Costa OA, Bevilacqua MC, Amantini RCB. Considerações Sobre o implante coclear em crianças. In: Bevilacqua MC, Moret ALM, editors., Deficiência auditiva. Pulso: Conversando com familiares e profissionais de saúde; 2005. p. 123–37.

This SR aims to identify evidence in the scientific literature that the CI favors auditory development, language, and social interaction in people with ASD with associated severe and/or profound hearing loss.

Methods

This SR’s search strategy followed the criteria recommended by the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses – PRISMA.1313 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. The protocol was registered on April 27th, 2020, at the International prospective register of systematic reviews – PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) registration number CRD4202015045.

Search strategy

The search strategy was performed in English, and the databases used were: PubMed, Cochrane, Lilacs, Livivo, Medline, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. The gray literature was consulted through the Google Scholar database. There was no restriction on the period or language of publication.

The keywords of the search strategy to identify articles published until September 2019 were described and combination as follows: “autism spectrum disorder” OR “autistic disorder” OR “autism” OR “autistic spectrum” (AND) “cochlear implant” OR “cochlear implants” OR “cochlear implantation” OR “cochlear implantations”. This same search strategy was used in all databases and gray literature.

After the search, each database’s references were exported to the EndNote X9 program (https://endnote.com),and then these same references were exported from EndNote X98 to the Rayyan QCRI program (https://rayyan.qcri.org/welcome).The purpose of these two programs was to record all duplicate articles found in the scientific literature, promoting greater reliability in selecting articles and proceeding to the eligibility stage.

Eligibility criteria

The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design(s) (PICOS)1313 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. strategy was used to define the eligibility criteria. The inclusion criteria was: 1) Population: patients with ASD and severe and/or profound hearing loss who used CI; 2) Intervention: received a CI at any age and be diagnosed with ASD at any age; 3) Comparison: development of hearing, language, and social interaction skills before and after CI surgery in each individual as well as comparing the development of these skills in patients who have only ASD and those with other associated disabilities; 4) Outcomes: evaluation of behavioral changes or communication skills after using CI13; 5) Study design: prospective clinical cohort, clinical cases, and case reports.

The exclusion criteria were: (1) Articles with patients not considered for a cochlear implant, (2) Studies using animals and in vitro, and (3) Studies with a lack of postoperative data.

All studies were analyzed for eligibility in the screening phases based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the first phase, all the studies were selected based on two reviewers’ titles and abstracts analysis. There was no disagreement among the reviewers in this phase, ruling out the need to consult the third reviewer. In the case of summary abstention, but with a relevant title, the study was included in the second phase.

In the second phase, the same two reviewers read each selected article’s full text using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, but adding the exclusion justification for each discarded study. The studies that met the inclusion criteria in this second step were included in a qualitative synthesis. Each type of study was analyzed according to the bias risk of bias assessment of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).1414 Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D, Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf, 2015.
http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/suma...

Table 1
Selected studies following the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in the SR.

Qualitative synthesis

The instruments used for the risk of bias assessment were the validated JBI critical appraisal checklists for each study design: cohort studies, studies reporting prevalence data, and case report. In the JBI critical assessment checklist, each question must be answered through four options: yes (Y), no (N), unclear (U), and not applicable (NA). The bias risk percentage calculation is done by the amount of “Y” selected in the checklist. When “NA” was selected, the question was not considered in the calculation, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).1414 Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D, Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf, 2015.
http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/suma...
Up to 49% is consid- ered a high risk of bias, 50%–70% is moderate, and above 70%, there is a low risk of bias.

In this phase, the same two reviewers applied the bias risk assessment of the JBI independently. There was no disagreement between them, ruling out the need to consult the third reviewer.

Results

The first phase of this SR found 484 articles in eight databases and 100 in the gray literature. After eliminating 209 duplicate studies, 375 were selected by reviewers to read titles and abstracts. Of these, 363 articles were excluded by the established exclusion criteria, and twelve articles were included in the second stage, which consisted of reading the full manuscript. Four articles were excluded in this stage for the following reasons: two articles1515 Löfkvist U, Almkvist O, Lyxell B, Tallberg IM. Lexical and semantic ability in groups of children with cochlear implants, language impairment and autism spectrum disorder. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:253–63.,1616 Whipple CM, Gfeller K, Driscoll V, Oleson J, McGregor K. Do communication disorders extend to musical messages? An answer from children with hearing loss or autism spectrum disorders. J Music Ther. 2015;52:78–116. showed the absence of a subject with ASD+CI; two1717 Zaidman-Zait A, Curle D. Complexity: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experiences of mothers of deaf children with cochlear implants and autism. J Health Psychol. 2018;23:1173–84.,1818 Longato-Morais CR, do Prado M da CR, Yamada MO. Cochlear implants and autism spectrum disorder: the experience of mothers. Psicol Estud. 2017;22:551–62. did not present pre- and postoperative data of the subjects, present the mother’s perception, and do not show auditory or communication aspects. Seven studies1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5.,1919 Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA. Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:666–71.2424 Lachowska M, Pastuszka A, Łukaszewicz-Moszynsk´ a Z, Mikołajewska L, Niemczyk K. Cochlear implantation in autistic children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:15–9. were selected for qualitative analysis in the present SR (Table 1). No studies were found by performing a manual search of the references of the articles. The whole article selection process is described in Fig. 1, which shows the flow PRISMA diagram for inclusion.

All seven articles were analyzed according to the JBI1414 Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D, Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf, 2015.
http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/suma...
according to each type of study: JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies (Table 2), JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data (Table 3), and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Report (Table 4). Four articles1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5.,2020 Hayman CD, Franck KH. Cochlear implant candidacy in children with Autism. Semin Hear. 2005;26:217–25.2222 Mikic B, Jotic A, Miric D, Nikolic M, Jankovic N, Arsovic N. Receptive speech in early implanted children later diagnosed with autism. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133:36–9. showed a low risk of bias, and three article1919 Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA. Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:666–71.,2323 Valero MR, Sadadcharam M, Henderson L, Freeman SR, Lloyd S, Green KM, et al. Compliance with cochlear implantation in children subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17:200–6.,2424 Lachowska M, Pastuszka A, Łukaszewicz-Moszynsk´ a Z, Mikołajewska L, Niemczyk K. Cochlear implantation in autistic children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:15–9. showed a moderated risk of bias.

In the seven studies selected for qualitative analysis, 67 individuals with ASD and hearing loss were described. Of these, 66 received CI (for one subject, CI was contraindicated). Forty-one subjects (62%) were diagnosed with ASD after the CI, 7 (11%) before the CI, and for 18 subjects (27%), the authors did not say whether the diagnosis of ASD was before or after the CI. Not all subjects had the same characteristics within the ASD. Two (2) individuals were ASD without intellectual and linguistic deficits (formerly known as Asperger syndrome), five (5) with PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified), and twenty-four (24) with autism. When analyzing the research subjects’ description with ASD, it was observed that 31 of them (46.3%) had some other associated disability, and 35 (53.7%) did not present reports of other associated disabilities.

Figure 1
Diagram of the identification and selection of articles adapted from PRISMA.
Table 2
JBI critical appraisal checklist for cohort studies.

The characteristics of patients with ASD and hearing loss who received a cochlear implant, without other associated disabilities, are shown in Table 5. Table 6 presents the results of patients with ASD and hearing loss who received a CI and have other associated disabilities.

Among the 35 patients with ASD and hearing loss without other associated disabilities, 6 (17%) did not establish any communication form. However, there was an increase in interaction with family members. Six (17%) did not develop oral communication – however, advanced sign language communication or alternative communication (pictures). Meanwhile, 9 (26%) demonstrated recognition of simple verbal commands and spoke simple sentences; and 14 (40%) developed language and fluent oral communication.

Among the 31 patients who, in addition to ASD and hearing loss, had other disabilities, 15 (48%) did not develop oral communication. Those communicated using sign language or alternative communication by pictures. Twelve patients (39%) demonstrated recognition of single verbal commands and vocalized simple words. Furthermore, four patients (13%) established oral communication in a simplified way after using CI.

Table 3
JBI critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data.
Table 4
JBI critical appraisal checklist for case report.

All seven articles were analyzed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – GRADEpro2525 Schünemann H, Bro˙zek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group; 2013. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook,2626 GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from gradepro.org, 2020. (Table 7).

As shown in Table 7, of the seven articles analyzed in this SR, 6 had a cross-sectional study design (cohort type accuracy study) with a total N of 95 patients and presented quality of evidence by evaluating the moderate grade system. Despite having a cross-sectional study design (cohort type accuracy study), one of the articles did not evaluate its seven patients with the same criteria used by the other authors. However, it presented similar results to the other studies with the quality of evidence through the GRADE Moderate System’s evaluation.

Discussion

The JBI’s systematic review starts with an evidence-based health model that focuses on the best information available and is not exclusively concerned with effectiveness. The model is adaptable to the diverse origins of health problems and uses various research methodologies to generate evidence related to the subject. JBI believes that healthcare professionals need evidence to support a comprehensive range of activities and interventions and, when making clinical decisions, should consider whether their approach is feasible, appropriate, meaningful, and effective. The instruments used to assess bias were critical assessment checklists validated by the JBI for each study design: cohort studies and studies reporting prevalence data and case reports. Four articles1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5.,2020 Hayman CD, Franck KH. Cochlear implant candidacy in children with Autism. Semin Hear. 2005;26:217–25.2222 Mikic B, Jotic A, Miric D, Nikolic M, Jankovic N, Arsovic N. Receptive speech in early implanted children later diagnosed with autism. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133:36–9. showed a low risk of bias, and three article1919 Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA. Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:666–71.,2323 Valero MR, Sadadcharam M, Henderson L, Freeman SR, Lloyd S, Green KM, et al. Compliance with cochlear implantation in children subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17:200–6.,2424 Lachowska M, Pastuszka A, Łukaszewicz-Moszynsk´ a Z, Mikołajewska L, Niemczyk K. Cochlear implantation in autistic children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:15–9. showed a moderate risk of bias. This information corroborates the signaling of the satisfactory quality of the studies found.

This SR showed that not all individuals with ASD and associated hearing loss who underwent cochlear implant developed oral communication. However, the intervention demonstrated other benefits such as increasing interaction with family members, establishing eye contact more frequently, and identifying sounds. The results corroborate previous studies’ findings that children’s gains were small compared to the general population receiving CI; however, the children showed development progress compared to preand post-surgery assessments.1919 Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA. Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:666–71.

Oral communication is not a realistic meta-test in children with ASD and cochlear implants. Nonetheless, the children gained a range of varying functional benefits that traditional methods evaluating the results of cochlear implants in children with autism are generally insufficient to fully assess.2424 Lachowska M, Pastuszka A, Łukaszewicz-Moszynsk´ a Z, Mikołajewska L, Niemczyk K. Cochlear implantation in autistic children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:15–9. Therefore, future studies evaluating the impact of CI among ASD children need to expand the success criteria assessing the individual’s full development abilities instead of narrowed criteria focused only on acquiring oral communication. This new approach will improve CI intervention recommendations, considering the children’s well-being and quality of life.

Table 5
Demographic data and implant details for patients with autistic spectrum disorder and hearing loss with the cochlear implant without other associated disabilities.
Table 6
Demographic data and implant details for patients with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Hearing Loss with a cochlear implant with other associated disabilities.
Table 7
Analyzed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – GRADEpro.

Studies argue that objective documentation of performance changes can be difficult or impossible for some children with ASD. In these cases, the authors argued that subjective reports from parents and professionals indicating that the implant had a positive effect on the child and the family might be the only measure of success that can be trusted.2020 Hayman CD, Franck KH. Cochlear implant candidacy in children with Autism. Semin Hear. 2005;26:217–25. In this RS, 21 patients – 31.8% did not estab- lish any form of traditional communication. However, there was an increase in interaction with family members, this condition being more present in cases of ASD and hearing loss associated with other disabilities. These data exemplify that social interaction development may go unnoticed in traditional assessments but be present in the reports of family members, caregivers, and professionals who monitor these children’s development. This information reinforces the possibility that patients with ASD and hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation expand other communication skills, even if they do not develop oral communication.

Forty-one (62%) of the individuals participating in the selected articles were diagnosed with ASD after the CI. The CI’s mean age was 2.9 years for individuals without other changes and 3.76 years for those with other associated disabilities. It was impossible to determine the mean age for ASD diagnosis, as most studies did not present this information.

There is a worldwide effort to increase the early diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss and CI intervention at an increasingly younger age. In Brazil, neonatal hearing screening coverage shows an increase from 9.3% to 37.2% in 2008–2015. Although there has been a significant increase in neonatal hearing screening coverage in Brazil in recent years, the national coverage rate is still low (37.2%) and much lower than the recommended literature. Also, in Brazil, there is interregional inequality in the coverage rates of neonatal hearing screening. The South and Southeast regions concentrate as the best rates, while the North, Northeast, and Midwest regions need more efforts to implement the neonatal hearing screening programs.2727 Paschoal MR, Cavalcanti HG, Ferreira MAF. Análise espacial e temporal da cobertura da triagem auditiva neonatal no Brasil (2008–2015). Cienc Saude Coletiva. 2017;22:3615–24.

The diagnosis of ASD is usually made later, considering the process of exclusion diagnosis.1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5. Previous studies have observed that the average time between implantation and the diagnosis of autism was 19 months for most participants and approximately two years after the CI.2121 Eshraghi AA, Nazarian R, Telischi FF, Martinez D, Hodges A, Velandia S, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with Autism spectrum disorder. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:121–8.,2323 Valero MR, Sadadcharam M, Henderson L, Freeman SR, Lloyd S, Green KM, et al. Compliance with cochlear implantation in children subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17:200–6. At the present study, 31 individuals (46.3%) had some other associated disability, such as: cortical blindness, globally delayed, developmental delay, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, left hemiparesis, visual diffs, prematurity, encephalopathy, gross motor delay, polymicrogyria, gliosis, developmental delay. Similar findings were reported previously, indicating that ASD may be part of a larger picture of multiple disability.1111 Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5.,2020 Hayman CD, Franck KH. Cochlear implant candidacy in children with Autism. Semin Hear. 2005;26:217–25.,2121 Eshraghi AA, Nazarian R, Telischi FF, Martinez D, Hodges A, Velandia S, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with Autism spectrum disorder. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:121–8.,2323 Valero MR, Sadadcharam M, Henderson L, Freeman SR, Lloyd S, Green KM, et al. Compliance with cochlear implantation in children subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17:200–6. The develop- ment of language and oral communication may not be a realistic goal for this audience. There is a great chance that other deficiencies associated with these conditions exist that can aggravate language and oral communication development. Research is needed to search for instruments that can more sensibly measure the development of people with ASD and deafness who have received CI.

Considering the quality of the evidence analyzed by the GRADE System, the results suggest that the CI favors the expressive and receptive language of people with ASD with severe conditions and/or hearing loss profound, even if they do not develop language to the same extent as people who use CI without ASD. Despite the fact that one of the studies does not follow the same line of results as the others selected. Thus, there is a recommendation for CI patients with ASD with associated severe and/or profound hearing loss.

Strengths and limitations

The limitations of this SR were the reduced availability of articles that met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the research question and the diversity of methodologies, measures and evaluation criteria used in the articles found. These facts made it impossible to elaborate the meta-analysis due to the lack of standardization.

As a strategy to overcome these limitations, a detailed description of the study subjects was presented, allowing a qualified discussion of the data with the researched literature. The lack of uniformity in the subjects’ performance evaluation tests after the CI and the diversity in the presentation of the results made it difficult to understand the evolution of communication, social interaction in a satisfactory way and the restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped behavior patterns.

Conclusion

This SR showed that the CI can favor auditory development, language, and social interaction in people with autistic spectrum disorder with associated severe and/or profound hearing loss.

As a strategy to overcome the limitations found in the elaboration of this SR and advance in the area, future studies should look for ways to assess the qualitative development of communication in subjects with ASD and hearing loss submitted to CI. Research protocols must consider the perception of family members, caregivers and professionals who monitor the development of these children. However, protocols must be standardized to allow comparison of results in different samples.

References

  • 1
    Baio J. Prevalence of Autism spectrum disorders–-Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 14 sites, United States, 2008. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:1–19.
  • 2
    Baio J, Wiggins L, Christensen DL, Maenner MJ, Daniels J, Warren Z, et al. Prevalence of Autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years–-Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2014. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:1–28.
  • 3
    Egelhoff K, Whitelaw G, Rabidoux P. What audiologists need to know about Autism spectrum disorders. Semin Hear. 2005;26:202–9.
  • 4
    Fombonne E. The epidemiology of Autism: a review. Psychol Med. 1999;29:769–86.
  • 5
    Beers AN, McBoyle M, Kakande E, Dar Santos RC, Kozak FK. Autism and peripheral hearing loss: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:96–101.
  • 6
    Rosenhall U, Nordin V, Sandström M, Ahlsén G, Gillberg C. Autism and hearing loss. J Autism 6. Dev Disord. 1999;29:349–57.
  • 7
    Tas A, Yagiz R, Tas M, Esme M, Uzun C, Karasalihoglu AR. Evaluation of hearing in children with Autism by using TEOAE and ABR. Autism. 2007;11:73–9.
  • 8
    Jure R, Rapin I, Tuchman RF. Hearing–-impaired autistic children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1991;33:1062–72.
  • 9
    Gravel JS, Dunn M, Lee WW, Ellis MA. Peripheral audition of children on the autistic spectrum. Ear Hear. 2006;27:299–312.
  • 10
    Roper L, Arnold P, Monteiro B. Co-occurrence of autism and deafness: diagnostic considerations. Autism. 2003;7:245–53.
  • 11
    Robertson J. Children with Cochlear implants and Autism–-challenges and outcomes: the experience of the national Cochlear implant programme, Ireland. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14:11–5.
  • 12
    Costa OA, Bevilacqua MC, Amantini RCB. Considerações Sobre o implante coclear em crianças. In: Bevilacqua MC, Moret ALM, editors., Deficiência auditiva. Pulso: Conversando com familiares e profissionais de saúde; 2005. p. 123–37.
  • 13
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.
  • 14
    Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D, Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf, 2015.
    » http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf
  • 15
    Löfkvist U, Almkvist O, Lyxell B, Tallberg IM. Lexical and semantic ability in groups of children with cochlear implants, language impairment and autism spectrum disorder. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:253–63.
  • 16
    Whipple CM, Gfeller K, Driscoll V, Oleson J, McGregor K. Do communication disorders extend to musical messages? An answer from children with hearing loss or autism spectrum disorders. J Music Ther. 2015;52:78–116.
  • 17
    Zaidman-Zait A, Curle D. Complexity: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experiences of mothers of deaf children with cochlear implants and autism. J Health Psychol. 2018;23:1173–84.
  • 18
    Longato-Morais CR, do Prado M da CR, Yamada MO. Cochlear implants and autism spectrum disorder: the experience of mothers. Psicol Estud. 2017;22:551–62.
  • 19
    Donaldson AI, Heavner KS, Zwolan TA. Measuring progress in children with autism spectrum disorder who have cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:666–71.
  • 20
    Hayman CD, Franck KH. Cochlear implant candidacy in children with Autism. Semin Hear. 2005;26:217–25.
  • 21
    Eshraghi AA, Nazarian R, Telischi FF, Martinez D, Hodges A, Velandia S, et al. Cochlear implantation in children with Autism spectrum disorder. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:121–8.
  • 22
    Mikic B, Jotic A, Miric D, Nikolic M, Jankovic N, Arsovic N. Receptive speech in early implanted children later diagnosed with autism. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133:36–9.
  • 23
    Valero MR, Sadadcharam M, Henderson L, Freeman SR, Lloyd S, Green KM, et al. Compliance with cochlear implantation in children subsequently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17:200–6.
  • 24
    Lachowska M, Pastuszka A, Łukaszewicz-Moszynsk´ a Z, Mikołajewska L, Niemczyk K. Cochlear implantation in autistic children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;84:15–9.
  • 25
    Schünemann H, Bro˙zek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group; 2013. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook
  • 26
    GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from gradepro.org, 2020.
  • 27
    Paschoal MR, Cavalcanti HG, Ferreira MAF. Análise espacial e temporal da cobertura da triagem auditiva neonatal no Brasil (2008–2015). Cienc Saude Coletiva. 2017;22:3615–24.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    29 Sept 2021
  • Date of issue
    2021

History

  • Received
    26 July 2020
  • Accepted
    30 Nov 2020
  • Published
    2 Jan 2021
Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Sede da Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico Facial, Av. Indianópolia, 1287, 04063-002 São Paulo/SP Brasil, Tel.: (0xx11) 5053-7500, Fax: (0xx11) 5053-7512 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@aborlccf.org.br