Multi-Frequency Hearing Improvement Analysis as a method evaluating recovery in patients with Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Lekarz wojskowy Pub Date : 2023-03-31 DOI:10.53301/lw/156023
P. Rozbicki, Jacek Usowski, J. Siewiera, D. Jurkiewicz
{"title":"Multi-Frequency Hearing Improvement Analysis as a method evaluating recovery in patients with Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss","authors":"P. Rozbicki, Jacek Usowski, J. Siewiera, D. Jurkiewicz","doi":"10.53301/lw/156023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hearing improvement assessment in patients with Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (ISSNHL) is complex. Methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of ISSNHL therapy do not include variety of PTA (Pure Tone Audiometry) curves. The aim of this paper is to assess usefulness of Multi-Frequency Hearing Improvement Analysis (MHIA) as an alternative method employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISSNHL treatment.Medical records of 218 patients with ISSNHL were statistically analysed in a retrospective study with regard to PTA results. Achieved results were compared using the following methods: Siegel’s criteria, Wilson’s criteria, and MHIA.The analysis based on Siegel’s criteria, which concerned the effectiveness of therapy, was as follows: complete recovery: 94 (43,1%), partial recovery: 20 (9,2%), slight recovery: 17 (7,8%), no recovery: 87 (39,9%). The MHIA analysis revealed the following weighted arithmetic mean recovery rate: Air Conduction and Bone Conduction respectively – complete recovery (23,5%; 43,14%), partial recovery: (9,12%; 20,51%); slight recovery (6,65%; 7,4%), no recovery (68,36%; 54,98%).MHIA corrects the overestimation of complete recovery rate based on Siegel’s criteria. Using mean auditory threshold stimulus as a baseline to evaluate hearing improvement in studies could distort the interpretation of research findings. Clinical features and usability of MHIA in diverse groups of patients require further studies.","PeriodicalId":86495,"journal":{"name":"Lekarz wojskowy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lekarz wojskowy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53301/lw/156023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Hearing improvement assessment in patients with Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (ISSNHL) is complex. Methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of ISSNHL therapy do not include variety of PTA (Pure Tone Audiometry) curves. The aim of this paper is to assess usefulness of Multi-Frequency Hearing Improvement Analysis (MHIA) as an alternative method employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISSNHL treatment.Medical records of 218 patients with ISSNHL were statistically analysed in a retrospective study with regard to PTA results. Achieved results were compared using the following methods: Siegel’s criteria, Wilson’s criteria, and MHIA.The analysis based on Siegel’s criteria, which concerned the effectiveness of therapy, was as follows: complete recovery: 94 (43,1%), partial recovery: 20 (9,2%), slight recovery: 17 (7,8%), no recovery: 87 (39,9%). The MHIA analysis revealed the following weighted arithmetic mean recovery rate: Air Conduction and Bone Conduction respectively – complete recovery (23,5%; 43,14%), partial recovery: (9,12%; 20,51%); slight recovery (6,65%; 7,4%), no recovery (68,36%; 54,98%).MHIA corrects the overestimation of complete recovery rate based on Siegel’s criteria. Using mean auditory threshold stimulus as a baseline to evaluate hearing improvement in studies could distort the interpretation of research findings. Clinical features and usability of MHIA in diverse groups of patients require further studies.
多频听力改善分析作为评估特发性突发性感音神经性听力损失患者恢复的方法
特发性突发性感觉神经性听力损失(ISSNHL)患者的听力改善评估是复杂的。用于评估ISSNHL治疗有效性的方法不包括各种PTA(纯音听力测定)曲线。本文的目的是评估多频率听力改善分析(MHIA)作为评估ISSNHL治疗效果的替代方法的有效性。在一项关于PTA结果的回顾性研究中,对218名ISSNHL患者的医疗记录进行了统计分析。使用以下方法对取得的结果进行比较:西格尔标准、威尔逊标准和MHIA。基于西格尔标准的关于治疗有效性的分析如下:完全恢复:94(43.1%),部分恢复:20(9.2%),轻度恢复:17(7.8%),无恢复:87(39.9%)。MHIA分析显示以下加权算术平均回收率:空气传导和骨传导分别为完全回收率(23.5%;43.14%),部分回收率:(9.12%;20.51%);轻度恢复(6,65%;7,4%),无恢复(68,36%;54,98%)。MHIA根据Siegel标准纠正了对完全恢复率的高估。在研究中使用平均听觉阈值刺激作为评估听力改善的基线可能会扭曲对研究结果的解释。MHIA在不同患者群体中的临床特征和可用性需要进一步研究。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信