Gitto Marco, Motta Noemi, Aldè Mirko, Zanetti Diego, Di Berardino Federica
Audiology Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Dipartimento di Eccellenza 2023-2027, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2025 Mar 26;14(7):2256. doi: 10.3390/jcm14072256.
Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) manifests as impaired auditory information processing despite normal peripheral hearing. Current clinical protocols lack standardization, hampering evidence-based intervention development. This review analyzes APD research developments from 2011 to 2025, examining diagnostic criteria, assessment protocols, and treatment effectiveness. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were analyzed (January 2011-January 2025), following PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened 413 articles, with 156 meeting inclusion criteria. Analysis included chi-square tests for intervention distribution and -tests for diagnostic comparisons (α = 0.05). Among 156 studies analyzed, medical interventions were markedly underrepresented (n = 4) compared to rehabilitative approaches (n = 52; χ = 50.28, < 0.001). The Random Gap Detection Test and Dichotic Digits Difference Test were most frequently used (12.86% and 10.48% of studies, respectively). Cognitive skill enhancement dominated intervention strategies (52.8%), followed by computer-based rehabilitation (26.4%). Publication frequency showed consistent annual growth, peaking at 57 studies in 2024. Sample sizes were comparable between APD and CAPD studies (mean difference = 4.2 cases, t = 0.416, = 0.679). Environmental modifications appeared in 15.1% of interventions, while speech therapy was reported in only 3.8% of studies. The substantial imbalance between medical and rehabilitative interventions necessitates standardized diagnostic protocols and enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration. Implementation of a hierarchical processing framework is recommended for assessment and treatment. Future research should prioritize large-scale controlled trials and unified diagnostic criteria development.
听觉处理障碍(APD)表现为尽管外周听力正常,但听觉信息处理受损。当前的临床方案缺乏标准化,阻碍了循证干预措施的发展。本综述分析了2011年至2025年期间APD的研究进展,考察了诊断标准、评估方案和治疗效果。按照PRISMA指南,对Medline、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行了分析(2011年1月至2025年1月)。两名评审员独立筛选了413篇文章,其中156篇符合纳入标准。分析包括用于干预分布的卡方检验和用于诊断比较的t检验(α = 0.05)。在分析的156项研究中,与康复方法(n = 52;χ = 50.28,P < 0.001)相比,医学干预的占比明显过低(n = 4)。随机间隙检测测试和双耳数字差异测试使用最为频繁(分别占研究的12.86%和10.48%)。认知技能增强在干预策略中占主导地位(52.8%),其次是基于计算机的康复(26.4%)。发表频率呈逐年稳步增长,在2024年达到峰值,为57项研究。APD和中枢听觉处理障碍(CAPD)研究的样本量相当(平均差异 = 4.2例,t = 0.416,P = 0.679)。15.1%的干预措施涉及环境调整,而只有3.8%的研究报告了言语治疗。医学干预和康复干预之间的巨大失衡需要标准化的诊断方案和加强多学科协作。建议采用分层处理框架进行评估和治疗。未来的研究应优先开展大规模对照试验和制定统一的诊断标准。