Literature DB >> 25700016

Audiometry-Based Screening Procedure for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

Ulrich Hoppe1, Anne Hast, Thomas Hocke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study defines a screening procedure for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy in hearing aid users by using simple audiometric measures.
METHODS: Within this retrospective study, hearing aid performance and audiometric measures in 185 subjects (318 ears) were analyzed. By means of a linear Naive Bayes classifier, the pure-tone average and the maximum monosyllabic score (PB(max)) were used to predict the aided monosyllabic word score and CI candidacy.
RESULTS: The two parameters PB(max) and four-frequency hearing threshold average can be used to predict speech perception with hearing aids with reasonable accuracy for screening purposes. The classification has a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 91%. The classification can be represented by a simple linear formula.
CONCLUSION: CI candidacy can be predicted based on commonly used audiometric measures.Cochlear implant candidacy may be considered if the difference between the average pure-tone threshold (in decibels) and PBmax (in percent) exceeds 8.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25700016     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000730

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  15 in total

Review 1.  [Device-based treatment of mixed hearing loss: An audiological comparison of current hearing systems].

Authors:  T Rahne; S K Plontke
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  [The age effect in evaluation of hearing aid benefits by speech audiometry].

Authors:  A Müller; T Hocke; U Hoppe; P Mir-Salim
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Clinical Implications of Word Recognition Differences in Earphone and Aided Conditions.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Jayne B Ahlstrom; William B Clinkscales; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 4.  [Speech audiometry for indication of conventional and implantable hearing aids].

Authors:  U Hoppe; A Hast
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  Minimal Reporting Standards for Active Middle Ear Hearing Implants.

Authors:  Hannes Maier; Uwe Baumann; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Dirk Beutner; Marco D Caversaccio; Thomas Keintzel; Martin Kompis; Thomas Lenarz; Astrid Magele; Torsten Mewes; Alexander Müller; Tobias Rader; Torsten Rahne; Sebastian P Schraven; Burkard Schwab; Georg Mathias Sprinzl; Bernd Strauchmann; Ingo Todt; Thomas Wesarg; Barbara Wollenberg; Stefan K Plontke
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  [Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms].

Authors:  C Dörfler; T Hocke; A Hast; U Hoppe
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates.

Authors:  Theodore R McRackan; Joshua E Fabie; Jane A Burton; Suqrat Munawar; Meredith A Holcomb; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  [APHAB scores for individual assessment of the benefit of hearing aid fitting].

Authors:  J Löhler; B Wollenberg; R Schönweiler
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Speech audiometry and data logging in CI patients : Implications for adequate test levels.

Authors:  M Hey; T Hocke; P Ambrosch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 1.284

10.  [Speech audiometry and data logging in CI patients : Implications for adequate test levels. German version].

Authors:  M Hey; T Hocke; P Ambrosch
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.