Emilia Nordlie, Johanna Elander, Maria Värendh, Karin Stenfeldt, Fredrik Tjernström, Marie Gisselsson-Solén, Julia Sjögren, Måns Magnusson, Johannes K Ehinger
{"title":"准确性和预测问题:研究突发性感音神经性听力损失的听力恢复测量和预后。","authors":"Emilia Nordlie, Johanna Elander, Maria Värendh, Karin Stenfeldt, Fredrik Tjernström, Marie Gisselsson-Solén, Julia Sjögren, Måns Magnusson, Johannes K Ehinger","doi":"10.1007/s00405-025-09675-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as 30 decibels (dB) hearing loss in 3 consecutive frequencies occurring within 72 h. Pure-tone average of four frequencies (PTA4) is commonly used to evaluate hearing levels but may not accurately reflect the recovery. We aimed to identify prognostic factors for recovery and to evaluate how recovery should be assessed, by comparing PTA4 with an individual pure-tone average (iPTA), including solely the hearing thresholds for the affected frequencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Demographic, clinical, and audiologic factors were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare recovery measurements based on iPTA and PTA4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this cohort, the mean age was 57 years (range 19-91 years). Dizziness was a prominent negative predictive factor (logistic regression: iPTA OR 0.09 95% CI 0.02-0.38, for full recovery; linear regression: iPTA 14.4 dB poorer recovery). Tinnitus correlated with, on average, 4.9 dB poorer recovery (P=0.043). Each day of delayed assessment was linked to a 0.84 dB reduction in recovery (P <0.001; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98). Comparing PTA4 with iPTA, the Bland-Altman plot showed -2.4 dB mean difference with wide limits of agreement, ranging from approximately -17 to 13 dB. In cases of frequency range-specific hearing loss, hearing recovered 8.7 dB more by using iPTA than PTA4 (P=0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dizziness, tinnitus, and increasing disease duration until assessment are negative prognostic factors. Compared to PTA4, iPTA better reflects actual hearing recovery, particularly in frequency range-specific hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":520614,"journal":{"name":"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Precision and prediction matter: investigating hearing recovery measurements and prognosis in sudden sensorineural hearing loss.\",\"authors\":\"Emilia Nordlie, Johanna Elander, Maria Värendh, Karin Stenfeldt, Fredrik Tjernström, Marie Gisselsson-Solén, Julia Sjögren, Måns Magnusson, Johannes K Ehinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00405-025-09675-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as 30 decibels (dB) hearing loss in 3 consecutive frequencies occurring within 72 h. Pure-tone average of four frequencies (PTA4) is commonly used to evaluate hearing levels but may not accurately reflect the recovery. We aimed to identify prognostic factors for recovery and to evaluate how recovery should be assessed, by comparing PTA4 with an individual pure-tone average (iPTA), including solely the hearing thresholds for the affected frequencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Demographic, clinical, and audiologic factors were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare recovery measurements based on iPTA and PTA4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this cohort, the mean age was 57 years (range 19-91 years). Dizziness was a prominent negative predictive factor (logistic regression: iPTA OR 0.09 95% CI 0.02-0.38, for full recovery; linear regression: iPTA 14.4 dB poorer recovery). Tinnitus correlated with, on average, 4.9 dB poorer recovery (P=0.043). Each day of delayed assessment was linked to a 0.84 dB reduction in recovery (P <0.001; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98). Comparing PTA4 with iPTA, the Bland-Altman plot showed -2.4 dB mean difference with wide limits of agreement, ranging from approximately -17 to 13 dB. In cases of frequency range-specific hearing loss, hearing recovered 8.7 dB more by using iPTA than PTA4 (P=0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dizziness, tinnitus, and increasing disease duration until assessment are negative prognostic factors. Compared to PTA4, iPTA better reflects actual hearing recovery, particularly in frequency range-specific hearing loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520614,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09675-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09675-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:突发性感音神经性听力损失(Sudden sensorineural hearing loss, SSNHL)是指在72小时内连续3个频率出现30分贝(dB)的听力损失。4个频率的纯音平均值(Pure-tone average of four frequency, PTA4)常用于评估听力水平,但可能不能准确反映恢复情况。我们的目的是通过比较PTA4和个体纯音平均值(iPTA),包括受影响频率的听力阈值,来确定恢复的预后因素,并评估如何评估恢复。方法:采用多变量线性回归模型和logistic回归模型对人口学、临床和听力学因素进行分析。采用Bland-Altman图比较基于iPTA和PTA4的恢复测量值。结果:在该队列中,平均年龄为57岁(范围19-91岁)。头晕是显著的负面预测因素(逻辑回归:iPTA OR 0.09 95% CI 0.02-0.38,完全恢复;线性回归:iPTA 14.4 dB较差的恢复)。耳鸣与平均4.9 dB的恢复差相关(P=0.043)。每延迟评估一天,恢复率降低0.84 dB (P)。结论:眩晕、耳鸣和疾病持续时间增加是评估前的负面预后因素。与PTA4相比,iPTA能更好地反映实际听力恢复情况,特别是在频率范围特异性听力损失方面。
Precision and prediction matter: investigating hearing recovery measurements and prognosis in sudden sensorineural hearing loss.
Purpose: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as 30 decibels (dB) hearing loss in 3 consecutive frequencies occurring within 72 h. Pure-tone average of four frequencies (PTA4) is commonly used to evaluate hearing levels but may not accurately reflect the recovery. We aimed to identify prognostic factors for recovery and to evaluate how recovery should be assessed, by comparing PTA4 with an individual pure-tone average (iPTA), including solely the hearing thresholds for the affected frequencies.
Methods: Demographic, clinical, and audiologic factors were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare recovery measurements based on iPTA and PTA4.
Results: In this cohort, the mean age was 57 years (range 19-91 years). Dizziness was a prominent negative predictive factor (logistic regression: iPTA OR 0.09 95% CI 0.02-0.38, for full recovery; linear regression: iPTA 14.4 dB poorer recovery). Tinnitus correlated with, on average, 4.9 dB poorer recovery (P=0.043). Each day of delayed assessment was linked to a 0.84 dB reduction in recovery (P <0.001; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98). Comparing PTA4 with iPTA, the Bland-Altman plot showed -2.4 dB mean difference with wide limits of agreement, ranging from approximately -17 to 13 dB. In cases of frequency range-specific hearing loss, hearing recovered 8.7 dB more by using iPTA than PTA4 (P=0.003).
Conclusion: Dizziness, tinnitus, and increasing disease duration until assessment are negative prognostic factors. Compared to PTA4, iPTA better reflects actual hearing recovery, particularly in frequency range-specific hearing loss.