Suppr超能文献

[纯音阈值与数字听力损失的相关性。专业领域中用于合理性检查的三种计算变体的比较]

[Correlation of pure tone thresholds and hearing loss for numbers. Comparison of three calculation variations for plausibility checking in expertise].

作者信息

Braun T, Dochtermann S, Krause E, Schmidt M, Schorn K, Hempel J M

机构信息

Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.

出版信息

HNO. 2011 Sep;59(9):908-14. doi: 10.1007/s00106-011-2332-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The present study analyzes the best combination of frequencies for the calculation of mean hearing loss in pure tone threshold audiometry for correlation with hearing loss for numbers in speech audiometry, since the literature describes different calculation variations for plausibility checking in expertise. Three calculation variations, A (250, 500 and 1000 Hz), B (500 and 1000 Hz) and C (500, 1000 and 2000 Hz), were compared.

METHODS

Audiograms in 80 patients with normal hearing, 106 patients with hearing loss and 135 expertise patients were analyzed in a retrospective manner. Differences between mean pure tone audiometry thresholds and hearing loss for numbers were calculated and statistically compared separately for the right and the left ear in the three patient collectives.

RESULTS

We found the calculation variation A to be the best combination of frequencies, since it yielded the smallest standard deviations while being statistically different to calculation variations B and C. The 1- and 2.58-fold standard deviation (representing 68.3% and 99.0% of all values) was ±4.6 and ±11.8 dB for calculation variation A in patients with hearing loss, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For plausibility checking in expertise, the mean threshold from the frequencies 250, 500 and 1000 Hz should be compared to the hearing loss for numbers. The common recommendation reported by the literature to doubt plausibility when the difference of these values exceeds ±5 dB is too strict as shown by this study.

摘要

背景

本研究分析了纯音听阈测听中计算平均听力损失的最佳频率组合,以与言语测听中的数字听力损失进行相关性分析,因为文献描述了不同的计算变体用于专业领域的合理性检查。比较了三种计算变体,A(250、500和1000赫兹)、B(500和1000赫兹)和C(500、1000和2000赫兹)。

方法

对80例听力正常患者、106例听力损失患者和135例专业患者的听力图进行回顾性分析。分别计算三个患者群体左右耳纯音听阈平均值与数字听力损失之间的差异,并进行统计学比较。

结果

我们发现计算变体A是最佳的频率组合,因为它产生的标准差最小,同时与计算变体B和C在统计学上有差异。听力损失患者中,计算变体A的1倍和2.58倍标准差(分别代表所有值的68.3%和99.0%)分别为±4.6分贝和±11.8分贝。

结论

在专业领域进行合理性检查时,应将250、500和1000赫兹频率的平均阈值与数字听力损失进行比较。本研究表明,文献中普遍推荐的当这些值的差异超过±5分贝时怀疑其合理性的标准过于严格。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验