A Comparative Study of Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Audiometry Scores in Unilateral Hearing Impaired Patients.

IF 0.7
Ear, nose, & throat journal Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1177/01455613241235501
XiaoLin Bao, YiLi Ding, Yuan Wang, XiaoWen Liu, BaiCheng Xu, YuFen Guo
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Audiometry Scores in Unilateral Hearing Impaired Patients.","authors":"XiaoLin Bao, YiLi Ding, Yuan Wang, XiaoWen Liu, BaiCheng Xu, YuFen Guo","doi":"10.1177/01455613241235501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To investigate the consistency between the hearing handicap inventory (HHI) and pure-tone audiometry (PTA) scores in assessing hearing status to provide valuable insights for clinical application. <b>Methods:</b> Retrospective analysis of clinical data and the HHI reporting status of 6540 patients admitted between April 2020 and July 2022 for self-reported unilateral hearing loss who met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the consistency of HHI and PTA in assessing the hearing status of the participants. <b>Results:</b> The PTA results showed that among the 6540 participants, 3895 exhibited normal hearing, 1434 showed mild hearing loss, 809 presented with moderate hearing loss, and 402 showed severe hearing loss. The mean hearing thresholds from 0.5 to 4 kHz in healthy ears ranged from 3.65 to 18.45 dB HL, with a mean of 10.83 ± 5.29 dB HL; in ears affected by hearing loss, this ranged from 35 to 125 dB HL, with a mean of 69.63 ± 28.45 dB HL. The HHI scores showed that 4820 people had normal hearing, 1245 had mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and 475 had severe hearing loss. The kappa coefficients of normal, mild-to-moderate, and severe hearing loss were 0.312, 0.223, and 0.716, respectively (<i>P</i> = .001). The consistency between the 2 groups was particularly significant in the assessment of severe hearing loss. Using the PTA results as a benchmark, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the HHI were found to be 73.08%, 87.83%, 95.60%, and 70.98%, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b> The HHI and PTA results were consistent in the assessment of hearing status, particularly in the assessment of severe hearing loss, and the level of consistency between the 2 methods was high. The combined use of these tools can facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the auditory status of patients with hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":93984,"journal":{"name":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","volume":" ","pages":"NP813-NP818"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear, nose, & throat journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613241235501","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the consistency between the hearing handicap inventory (HHI) and pure-tone audiometry (PTA) scores in assessing hearing status to provide valuable insights for clinical application. Methods: Retrospective analysis of clinical data and the HHI reporting status of 6540 patients admitted between April 2020 and July 2022 for self-reported unilateral hearing loss who met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The kappa coefficient was used to evaluate the consistency of HHI and PTA in assessing the hearing status of the participants. Results: The PTA results showed that among the 6540 participants, 3895 exhibited normal hearing, 1434 showed mild hearing loss, 809 presented with moderate hearing loss, and 402 showed severe hearing loss. The mean hearing thresholds from 0.5 to 4 kHz in healthy ears ranged from 3.65 to 18.45 dB HL, with a mean of 10.83 ± 5.29 dB HL; in ears affected by hearing loss, this ranged from 35 to 125 dB HL, with a mean of 69.63 ± 28.45 dB HL. The HHI scores showed that 4820 people had normal hearing, 1245 had mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and 475 had severe hearing loss. The kappa coefficients of normal, mild-to-moderate, and severe hearing loss were 0.312, 0.223, and 0.716, respectively (P = .001). The consistency between the 2 groups was particularly significant in the assessment of severe hearing loss. Using the PTA results as a benchmark, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the HHI were found to be 73.08%, 87.83%, 95.60%, and 70.98%, respectively. Conclusion: The HHI and PTA results were consistent in the assessment of hearing status, particularly in the assessment of severe hearing loss, and the level of consistency between the 2 methods was high. The combined use of these tools can facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the auditory status of patients with hearing loss.

单侧听力障碍患者听力障碍量表与纯音测听评分比较研究
目的研究听力障碍清单(HHI)和纯音测听(PTA)评分在评估听力状况时的一致性,为临床应用提供有价值的见解。研究方法回顾性分析2020年4月至2022年7月期间因自述单侧听力损失而入院的6540名符合研究纳入和排除标准的患者的临床数据和HHI报告状态。采用卡帕系数评估 HHI 和 PTA 在评估参与者听力状况时的一致性。结果显示PTA结果显示,在6540名参与者中,3895人听力正常,1434人轻度听力损失,809人中度听力损失,402人重度听力损失。健康耳朵 0.5 至 4 kHz 的平均听阈为 3.65 至 18.45 dB HL,平均为 10.83 ± 5.29 dB HL;受听力损失影响的耳朵的平均听阈为 35 至 125 dB HL,平均为 69.63 ± 28.45 dB HL。HHI 分数显示,4820 人听力正常,1245 人轻度至中度听力损失,475 人重度听力损失。正常、轻度至中度和重度听力损失的卡帕系数分别为 0.312、0.223 和 0.716(P = .001)。两组之间的一致性在重度听力损失评估中尤为显著。以 PTA 结果为基准,HHI 的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 73.08%、87.83%、95.60% 和 70.98%。结论HHI 和 PTA 在听力状况评估中的结果是一致的,尤其是在重度听力损失的评估中,两种方法之间的一致性很高。联合使用这些工具有助于全面评估听力损失患者的听力状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书