School of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Faculty of Medicine, University de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
International Laboratory for Research on Brain, Music, and Sound, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Dec 1;144(12):1136-1144. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2018.2416.
Current individualized sound therapies for tinnitus rely on tinnitus pitch assessment, which is commonly derived from the standard clinical 2-alternative forced-choice (2-AFC) approach driven by the examiner. However, this method is limited by lack of individual test-retest reliability and focuses on a single rather than multiple tinnitus frequencies.
To assess individual test-retest reliability of the 2-AFC, with a single final frequency (and corresponding loudness), and the tinnitus likeness rating (TLR), with the participant exposed to the entire audible frequency spectrum, from which 3 dominant frequencies and corresponding loudness were extracted.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this case series, participants with tinnitus underwent testing twice with both methods at a 1-month interval by experienced clinicians from January 6 through March 17, 2017. Each clinician tested each patient only once at visit 1 or 2 in a university audiology training setting with standardized equipment and was blind to previous assessment. Participants with bilateral or unilateral chronic tinnitus for longer than 6 months, in good health, without total deafness in either ear, and without cerumen in the ear canal were recruited through advertisements (community and clinics) and word of mouth (volunteer sample). The audiologists were likewise participants in the planned comparison between TLR and 2-AFC in the test-retest measures.
Test-retest concordance with 95% CIs for each method, calculated as the proportion of participants with the same final frequency between the 2 visits (2-AFC) or with at least 1 concordant dominant frequency (TLR) as well as loudness differences of no greater than 10 dB.
The study sample included 31 participants (55% men; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [13.7] years). For TLR, 26 of 31 participants had at least 1 concordant dominant frequency between the 2 visits (proportion, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), whereas for 2-AFC, 7 of 31 participants had a concordant final tinnitus pitch in either ear (proportion, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.41). Loudness reliability followed the same pattern, with more concordant loudness levels in the TLR (proportion, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) than in the 2-AFC (proportion, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.05-0.85). Mean time taken to complete the tests was less than 15 minutes, and general appreciation by participants with tinnitus and audiologists were overall similar for both.
Superior test-retest concordance can be demonstrated at the individual level using the several dominant frequencies extracted from the patient-centered TLR.
目前针对耳鸣的个体化声音疗法依赖于耳鸣音调评估,通常是通过由检查者驱动的标准临床 2 择 1 强制选择(2-AFC)方法得出。然而,这种方法受到个体测试-再测试可靠性的限制,并且仅关注单一而非多个耳鸣频率。
评估 2-AFC 与单次最终频率(和相应响度)以及耳鸣相似性评分(TLR)的个体测试-再测试可靠性,参与者暴露于整个可听频率范围内,从中提取出 3 个主导频率及其相应的响度。
设计、设置和参与者:在这项病例系列研究中,患有耳鸣的参与者在 1 个月的间隔内由经验丰富的临床医生通过两种方法进行了两次测试,时间为 2017 年 1 月 6 日至 3 月 17 日。每位临床医生在大学听力训练环境中仅对每位患者进行了一次测试,使用标准化设备,对之前的评估一无所知。参与者为患有单侧或双侧慢性耳鸣超过 6 个月、身体健康、双耳无全聋、耳道无耳垢的患者,通过广告(社区和诊所)和口碑(志愿者样本)招募。听力学家也是计划比较 TLR 和 2-AFC 在测试-再测试测量中的参与者。
对于每种方法,计算两次就诊之间具有相同最终频率的参与者比例(2-AFC)或具有至少 1 个一致主导频率(TLR)的参与者比例作为测试-再测试一致性的指标,以及响度差异不超过 10dB。
研究样本包括 31 名参与者(55%为男性;平均[标准差]年龄为 50.7[13.7]岁)。对于 TLR,31 名参与者中有 26 名在两次就诊之间至少有 1 个一致的主导频率(比例为 0.84;95%置信区间,0.66-0.95),而对于 2-AFC,31 名参与者中有 7 名在任一只耳朵中具有一致的最终耳鸣音高(比例为 0.23;95%置信区间,0.10-0.41)。响度可靠性也遵循相同的模式,TLR 的一致性响度水平更高(比例为 0.73;95%置信区间,0.52-0.88),而 2-AFC 的一致性响度水平更高(比例为 0.40;95%置信区间,0.05-0.85)。完成测试的平均时间不到 15 分钟,并且耳鸣患者和听力学家的总体评价总体上相似。
使用从以患者为中心的 TLR 中提取的多个主导频率,可以在个体水平上证明更好的测试-再测试一致性。