加入耳鸣和听力调查-听力亚量表提高好耳四频纯音平均预测强度。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Gregory M Ellis, Rebecca Bieber, Alyssa Davidson, LaGuinn Sherlock, Michele Spencer, Douglas Brungart
{"title":"加入耳鸣和听力调查-听力亚量表提高好耳四频纯音平均预测强度。","authors":"Gregory M Ellis, Rebecca Bieber, Alyssa Davidson, LaGuinn Sherlock, Michele Spencer, Douglas Brungart","doi":"10.1097/AUD.0000000000001633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this project was to quantify the relative efficacy of a four-frequency pure-tone average in the better ear (PTA4), the Hearing subscale of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS-H), and a combination of the two in predicting speech-in-noise performance, hearing aid recommendation, and hearing aid use among United States service members (SMs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A two-analysis retrospective study was performed. The first analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted performance on a speech-in-noise test, the modified rhyme test. Three binomial mixed-effects models were fitted using better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and both measures as primary predictors of interest. Age and sex were included as covariates in all models. The models were compared to one another using Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests and the best-fitting model was examined. Data from 5988 SMs were analyzed in the first analysis. The second analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted two hearing aid-related outcomes: recommendation for hearing aids by a clinician and hearing aid use. Three receiver operating characteristic curves were fit for each question for better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H. The area under the curve was bootstrapped to generate confidence intervals to compare the three measures. Data from 8001 SMs were analyzed in the second analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the first analysis, all three models explained more variance than chance; however, the better-ear PTA4 + THS-H model was a significantly better fit than either the better-ear PTA4 alone or the THS-H alone models. Significant main effects of better-ear PTA4 and THS-H indicated that proportion correct decreased as better-ear PTA4 and THS-H increased. A significant interaction was observed such that proportion correct decreased more rapidly if both better-ear PTA4 and THS-H were increasing in tandem. In the second analysis, better-ear PTA4 + THS-H showed good predictive discrimination of a prior hearing aid recommendation. For predicting hearing aid use, better-ear PTA4 was the only predictor with an area under the curve bootstrapped confidence interval that overlapped 0.50, indicating better-ear PTA4 alone is a chance predictor for hearing aid use. Both THS-H alone and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H predicted hearing aid use better than chance, but had poor discrimination overall.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adding the THS-H to the better-ear PTA4 improves predictions of speech intelligibility in noise, has good predictive strength for hearing aid recommendations, and predicts hearing aid use better than chance. This study provides evidence for using surveys in conjunction with objective data when evaluating hearing ability and recommending interventions. These findings are relevant to discourse regarding self-administered hearing healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the Predictive Strength of Better-Ear Four-Frequency Pure-Tone Average With the Addition of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey-Hearing Subscale.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory M Ellis, Rebecca Bieber, Alyssa Davidson, LaGuinn Sherlock, Michele Spencer, Douglas Brungart\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AUD.0000000000001633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this project was to quantify the relative efficacy of a four-frequency pure-tone average in the better ear (PTA4), the Hearing subscale of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS-H), and a combination of the two in predicting speech-in-noise performance, hearing aid recommendation, and hearing aid use among United States service members (SMs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A two-analysis retrospective study was performed. The first analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted performance on a speech-in-noise test, the modified rhyme test. Three binomial mixed-effects models were fitted using better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and both measures as primary predictors of interest. Age and sex were included as covariates in all models. The models were compared to one another using Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests and the best-fitting model was examined. Data from 5988 SMs were analyzed in the first analysis. The second analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted two hearing aid-related outcomes: recommendation for hearing aids by a clinician and hearing aid use. Three receiver operating characteristic curves were fit for each question for better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H. The area under the curve was bootstrapped to generate confidence intervals to compare the three measures. Data from 8001 SMs were analyzed in the second analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the first analysis, all three models explained more variance than chance; however, the better-ear PTA4 + THS-H model was a significantly better fit than either the better-ear PTA4 alone or the THS-H alone models. Significant main effects of better-ear PTA4 and THS-H indicated that proportion correct decreased as better-ear PTA4 and THS-H increased. A significant interaction was observed such that proportion correct decreased more rapidly if both better-ear PTA4 and THS-H were increasing in tandem. In the second analysis, better-ear PTA4 + THS-H showed good predictive discrimination of a prior hearing aid recommendation. For predicting hearing aid use, better-ear PTA4 was the only predictor with an area under the curve bootstrapped confidence interval that overlapped 0.50, indicating better-ear PTA4 alone is a chance predictor for hearing aid use. Both THS-H alone and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H predicted hearing aid use better than chance, but had poor discrimination overall.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adding the THS-H to the better-ear PTA4 improves predictions of speech intelligibility in noise, has good predictive strength for hearing aid recommendations, and predicts hearing aid use better than chance. This study provides evidence for using surveys in conjunction with objective data when evaluating hearing ability and recommending interventions. These findings are relevant to discourse regarding self-administered hearing healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ear and Hearing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ear and Hearing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001633\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear and Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001633","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本项目的目的是量化四频纯音平均值在较好的耳朵(PTA4)、耳鸣和听力调查(THS-H)的听力分量表的相对功效,以及两者在预测美国服役人员(SMs)的噪音语音表现、助听器推荐和助听器使用方面的组合。设计:采用双分析回顾性研究。第一个分析检验了单独的好耳PTA4、单独的hs - h以及单独的好耳PTA4与hs - h结合在噪音语音测试中的预测程度,即修改的韵律测试。三个二项混合效应模型拟合使用单独的好耳PTA4,单独的hs - h,并将这两种测量作为主要预测因子。所有模型均将年龄和性别作为协变量。使用卡方拟合优度检验对模型进行比较,并检验最佳拟合模型。第一次分析分析了5988条短信的数据。第二项分析检查了单独的“好耳PTA4”、单独的“好耳PTA4”和“好耳PTA4”联合“好耳PTA4”对两种助听器相关结果的预测程度:临床医生推荐助听器和助听器使用。每个问题分别拟合好耳PTA4单独、hs - h单独和好耳PTA4 + hs - h的3条受试者工作特征曲线。对曲线下的面积进行自举,以生成可信区间来比较这三个度量。在第二次分析中分析了8001个SMs的数据。结果:在第一次分析中,所有三个模型都解释了更多的方差而不是机会;然而,好耳PTA4 + hs - h模型的拟合效果明显优于单独使用好耳PTA4或单独使用hs - h模型。好穗PTA4和THS-H的显著主效应表明,随着好穗PTA4和THS-H的增加,正确率降低。观察到一个显著的相互作用,如果好穗PTA4和hs - h同时增加,正确率下降得更快。在第二项分析中,听力更好的PTA4 + hs - h对先前的助听器推荐具有良好的预测辨别能力。在预测助听器使用情况方面,听力较好的PTA4是唯一的预测指标,曲线下的面积自启动置信区间重叠0.50,这表明听力较好的PTA4单独是助听器使用的机会预测指标。单独使用THS-H和更好耳PTA4 + THS-H预测助听器使用情况优于随机预测,但总体上判别性较差。结论:将THS-H加入好耳PTA4可提高对噪声环境下语音清晰度的预测,对助听器推荐具有较好的预测强度,预测助听器使用情况优于随机预测。本研究为在评估听力能力和推荐干预措施时结合客观数据使用调查提供了证据。这些发现与自我管理的听力保健相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving the Predictive Strength of Better-Ear Four-Frequency Pure-Tone Average With the Addition of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey-Hearing Subscale.

Objectives: The objective of this project was to quantify the relative efficacy of a four-frequency pure-tone average in the better ear (PTA4), the Hearing subscale of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS-H), and a combination of the two in predicting speech-in-noise performance, hearing aid recommendation, and hearing aid use among United States service members (SMs).

Design: A two-analysis retrospective study was performed. The first analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted performance on a speech-in-noise test, the modified rhyme test. Three binomial mixed-effects models were fitted using better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and both measures as primary predictors of interest. Age and sex were included as covariates in all models. The models were compared to one another using Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests and the best-fitting model was examined. Data from 5988 SMs were analyzed in the first analysis. The second analysis examined the degree to which better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 in conjunction with THS-H predicted two hearing aid-related outcomes: recommendation for hearing aids by a clinician and hearing aid use. Three receiver operating characteristic curves were fit for each question for better-ear PTA4 alone, THS-H alone, and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H. The area under the curve was bootstrapped to generate confidence intervals to compare the three measures. Data from 8001 SMs were analyzed in the second analysis.

Results: In the first analysis, all three models explained more variance than chance; however, the better-ear PTA4 + THS-H model was a significantly better fit than either the better-ear PTA4 alone or the THS-H alone models. Significant main effects of better-ear PTA4 and THS-H indicated that proportion correct decreased as better-ear PTA4 and THS-H increased. A significant interaction was observed such that proportion correct decreased more rapidly if both better-ear PTA4 and THS-H were increasing in tandem. In the second analysis, better-ear PTA4 + THS-H showed good predictive discrimination of a prior hearing aid recommendation. For predicting hearing aid use, better-ear PTA4 was the only predictor with an area under the curve bootstrapped confidence interval that overlapped 0.50, indicating better-ear PTA4 alone is a chance predictor for hearing aid use. Both THS-H alone and better-ear PTA4 + THS-H predicted hearing aid use better than chance, but had poor discrimination overall.

Conclusions: Adding the THS-H to the better-ear PTA4 improves predictions of speech intelligibility in noise, has good predictive strength for hearing aid recommendations, and predicts hearing aid use better than chance. This study provides evidence for using surveys in conjunction with objective data when evaluating hearing ability and recommending interventions. These findings are relevant to discourse regarding self-administered hearing healthcare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ear and Hearing
Ear and Hearing 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: From the basic science of hearing and balance disorders to auditory electrophysiology to amplification and the psychological factors of hearing loss, Ear and Hearing covers all aspects of auditory and vestibular disorders. This multidisciplinary journal consolidates the various factors that contribute to identification, remediation, and audiologic and vestibular rehabilitation. It is the one journal that serves the diverse interest of all members of this professional community -- otologists, audiologists, educators, and to those involved in the design, manufacture, and distribution of amplification systems. The original articles published in the journal focus on assessment, diagnosis, and management of auditory and vestibular disorders.
×
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