Löhler J, Akcicek B, Wollenberg B, Kappe T, Schlattmann P, Schönweiler R
Scientific Institute for Applied ENT-Research, German Professional Association of ENT-Surgeons, Maienbeeck 1, 24576, Bad Bramstedt, Germany.
Department of ENT-Surgery, Universital Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Nov;273(11):3587-3593. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-3966-9. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
Hearing loss can be measured by pure-tone and speech audiometry. The subjective hearing impairment can be assessed using questionnaires. The APHAB determines this for four typical hearing situations. It has not been researched previously whether a particular frequency-specific hearing loss leads to a particular unaided APHAB score in one of the subscales or not. Clarification could be helpful using the unaided APHAB as an instrument for primary diagnostics of hearing loss independently of whether hearing aids were subsequently fitted or not. A total of 4546 records from a database were analysed; the average age of the subjects was 69.3 years. Using a multivariant mixed linear model, a possible correlation was examined between a frequency-specific hearing loss (0.5-8.0 kHz) and particular unaided APHAB scores for its subscales. Furthermore, it was determined whether the subject's gender has a corresponding impact. There was no evidence of gender-specific dependence of the unaided APHAB scores. For the EC scale frequencies above 0.5 kHz, for the RV scale all frequencies and for the AV scale the frequencies at 1.0 and 2.0 kHz showed a significant correlation between hearing loss and the APHAB score. For each decibel of hearing loss there was an average rise in the APHAB score for the EC and RV scale of approximately 0.2 percentage points and an average decrease in the AV scale of 0.1 percentage points for each frequency. For the BN scale there was no evidence of this kind of correlation. The very varied possibility between individuals compensating for hearing loss in situations with background noises could be that there is no correlation between frequency-specific hearing loss and an associated unaided APHAB score. The described frequency-specific influence of hearing loss to the EC and RV score could be explained by fewer compensating possibilities for the patients in these specific hearing situations than for the BN scale described. Using the unaided APHAB form in primary diagnostics of hearing impairment is helpful for understanding individual problems.
听力损失可通过纯音听力计和言语测听法进行测量。主观听力障碍可使用问卷进行评估。APHAB针对四种典型听力情况进行评估。此前尚未研究过特定频率特异性听力损失是否会导致其中一个子量表中特定的未佩戴助听器的APHAB评分。无论后续是否佩戴助听器，使用未佩戴助听器的APHAB作为听力损失初步诊断的工具可能有助于澄清这一问题。对数据库中的4546条记录进行了分析；受试者的平均年龄为69.3岁。使用多变量混合线性模型，研究了特定频率听力损失（0.5 - 8.0kHz）与特定未佩戴助听器的APHAB子量表评分之间的可能相关性。此外，还确定了受试者的性别是否有相应影响。没有证据表明未佩戴助听器的APHAB评分存在性别特异性依赖性。对于EC量表中高于0.5kHz的频率、RV量表的所有频率以及AV量表中1.0kHz和2.0kHz的频率，听力损失与APHAB评分之间存在显著相关性。对于EC和RV量表，每增加1分贝听力损失，APHAB评分平均上升约0.2个百分点；对于AV量表，每个频率下每增加1分贝听力损失，APHAB评分平均下降0.1个百分点。对于BN量表，没有这种相关性的证据。个体在背景噪声环境中补偿听力损失的可能性差异很大，这可能是特定频率听力损失与相关未佩戴助听器的APHAB评分之间不存在相关性的原因。所描述的听力损失对EC和RV评分的特定频率影响可以解释为，在这些特定听力情况下，患者的补偿可能性比BN量表所描述的情况要少。在听力障碍的初步诊断中使用未佩戴助听器的APHAB表格有助于了解个体问题。
