Literature DB >> 16741721

[Simulation and aggravation in ENT medical examinations. A prospective study].

M Streppel1, T Brusis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The occurrence and characteristics of simulation and aggravation in audiology still lack detailed scientific research. A reliable and reasonable classification of simulation and aggravation, which could help assess a patient's cooperative behavior, has not been defined. PATIENTS AND
METHODOLOGY: All patients who underwent an audiological medical examination were included in this study prospectively. These patients were examined based on a well structured and predetermined sequence of actions. As a result, they were grouped into one of four categories, from category 0 for no simulation or aggravation to category III for severe simulation and aggravation. For category III, reliable and valid thresholds for pure tone audiometry only can be achieved by using objective audiological measurements such as brainstem electric response audiometry. Measured thresholds were then compared with simulated or aggravated thresholds and finally correlated with socio-economic factors.
RESULTS: A total of 61 individuals were included in this study. Only 42% (26/61) showed no simulation or aggravation (category 0). In all 10% were grouped in category III. The remaining 48% fell into categories I and II. Statistical evaluation revealed no significant differences in thresholds between categories I, II and III. The tendency to simulation or aggravation increased with patient' age, level of education and the frequency of medical examinations prior to this investigation.
CONCLUSION: Simulation and aggravation is a frequent phenomenon (approximately 58% of all audiological examinations). Additional work on defining a unique schema for the classification of simulation and aggravation is necessary. The use of such a schema is highly recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 16741721     DOI: 10.1007/s00106-006-1433-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HNO        ISSN: 0017-6192            Impact factor:   1.284


  10 in total

1.  [Possible errors in pure tone and speech audiometry].

Authors:  H von Wedel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Facial nerve grading systems (1985-2002): beyond the House-Brackmann scale.

Authors:  Thomas S Kang; Jeffrey T Vrabec; Neil Giddings; David J Terris
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  [Measurement of acoustic impedance of hearing].

Authors:  W WAGEMANN
Journal:  Z Laryngol Rhinol Otol       Date:  1956-11

4.  [An index for paresis and defective healing--an easily applied method for objectively determining therapeutic results in facial paresis (author's transl)].

Authors:  E Stennert; C H Limberg; K P Frentrup
Journal:  HNO       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  [Aggravation of hearing loss (author's transl)].

Authors:  W Kumpf
Journal:  HNO       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  [The MdE scale based on the pure tone audiogram (author's transl)].

Authors:  D Röser
Journal:  Z Laryngol Rhinol Otol       Date:  1973-09

7.  Facial nerve grading systems.

Authors:  J W House
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  [The "negative" SISI-test (author's transl)].

Authors:  T Brusis
Journal:  Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg)       Date:  1978-01

9.  [Functional hearing loss in speech audiometry (author's transl)].

Authors:  W Stoll; W Kumpf
Journal:  HNO       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 1.284

10.  [The damage "before" and the damage "afterwards" in industrial-noise deafness (author's transl)].

Authors:  T Brusis; G Mehrtens
Journal:  Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg)       Date:  1981-04
  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  [Negative response bias and assessment of uncooperativeness in independent medical evaluations].

Authors:  T Merten
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.087

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

Authors:  T Braun; S Dochtermann; E Krause; M Schmidt; K Schorn; J M Hempel
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.284

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.