This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

61/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objectives To analyze long-term cognitive status and function after cochlear implantation in profoundly deaf individuals. Design Prospective observational longitudinal study. Setting Ten academic medical centers referent for cochlear implantation. Participants Individuals aged 65 and older who qualified for cochlear implantation (N=70). Measurements Cognitive tests were administered before cochlear implantation and 1 and 5 or more years after cochlear implantation. Evaluation consisted of 6 tests assessing attention, memory, orientation, executive function, mental flexibility, and fluency. Cognitive status was determined as normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia. Speech perception in quiet and noisy conditions was assessed using disyllabic words, and quality of life was assessed using the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire. Results Mean follow-up was 6.8 years (range 5.5-8.5 years). Speech perception scores and quality of life remained stable from 1 to 7 years after cochlear implantation. Of 31 participants (45%) with MCI before cochlear implantation, 2 (6%) developed dementia during follow-up, 19 (61%) remained stable, and 10 (32%) returned to normal cognition. None of the 38 with normal cognition developed dementia during follow-up, although 12 (32%) developed MCI. Conclusion MCI is highly prevalent in older adults with profound hearing loss. Nevertheless, we observed a low rate of progression to dementia, and cognitive function improved in some individuals with MCI at baseline. These results highlight that cochlear implantation should be strongly considered in profoundly deaf individuals, even those with MCI, who may have a specific subtype of MCI, with a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on neurocognitive functioning.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study of 70 participants. This longitudinal study of 70 profoundly deaf older adults found that after cochlear implantation, most with mild cognitive impairment remained stable or returned to normal cognition, with a low rate of progression to dementia. It suggests a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on cognition but does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Mosnier, I., Vanier, A., Bonnard, D., Lina-Granade, G., Truy, E., Bordure, P., et al. (2018). Long-Term Cognitive Prognosis of Profoundly Deaf Older Adults After Hearing Rehabilitation Using Cochlear Implants. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15445

Vancouver

Mosnier I, Vanier A, Bonnard D, Lina-Granade G, Truy E, Bordure P, et al. Long-Term Cognitive Prognosis of Profoundly Deaf Older Adults After Hearing Rehabilitation Using Cochlear Implants. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15445. PMID: 30091185.

BibTeX

@article{mosnier2018-30091185,
  author  = {Mosnier, I. and Vanier, A. and Bonnard, D. and Lina-Granade, G. and Truy, E. and Bordure, P. and Godey, B. and Marx, M. and others},
  title   = {{Long-Term Cognitive Prognosis of Profoundly Deaf Older Adults After Hearing Rehabilitation Using Cochlear Implants}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.15445},
  pmid    = {30091185},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15445}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 70 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Mean follow-up was 6.8 years (range 5.5-8.5 years).
Nevertheless, we observed a low rate of progression to dementia, and cognitive function improved in some individuals with MCI at baseline.
These results highlight that cochlear implantation should be strongly considered in profoundly deaf individuals, even those with MCI, who may have a specific subtype of MCI, with a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on neurocognitive functioning.

Why it matters

This longitudinal study of 70 profoundly deaf older adults found that after cochlear implantation, most with mild cognitive impairment remained stable or returned to normal cognition, with a low rate of progression to dementia. It suggests a possible positive effect of hearing rehabilitation on cognition but does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants70
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 61/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	70 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 122 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	12.2 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 5.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 4 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 40 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Joël Belmin: h-index 44 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: institution h-index 2,511 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30091185)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	61 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

4 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “controlled”

1,116 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,116 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →