| Literature DB >> 29146645 |
Yuexin Cai1,2, Qian Zhou3, Haidi Yang1,2, Jiajia Jiang1,2, Fei Zhao4,5, Xiayin Huang1,2, Hanjie Mo1,2, Xiaoting Chen1,2, Hao Xiong1,2, Suijun Chen1, Xueyuan Zhang1,2, Yiqing Zheng1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors influencing the effectiveness of intensive sound masking therapy on tinnitus using logistic regression analysis.Entities:
Keywords: audiometric configuration; prognostic factors; sound masking; tinnitus
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29146645 PMCID: PMC5695311 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Comparison of demographic and audiological characteristics between the effective and non-effective groups in patients with tinnitus who received the sound masking intervention
| Variable | Total | Effective group | Non-effective group | χ2/t test | P value |
| Demographic characteristics | |||||
| Age (years, mean±SD) | 44.98±15.41 | 41.20±15.41 | 48.76±14.58 | −2.55 | 0.012* |
| Gender (n, %) | 2.53 | 0.163 | |||
| Male | 46 (45.1%) | 19 (37.3%) | 27 (52.9%) | ||
| Female | 56 (54.9%) | 32 (62.7%) | 24 (47.1%) | ||
| Hearing status | |||||
| Hearing threshold in tinnitus ears (dB HL) | 53.75±27.66 | 52.51±26.94 | 54.98±28.57 | −0.45 | 0.65 |
| Audiogram configurations (n, %) | 8.30 | 0.04* | |||
| Flat | 50 (49.02%) | 32 (62.75%) | 18 (35.29%) | ||
| HFGS | 21 (20.59%) | 9 (17.65%) | 12 (23.53%) | ||
| HFSS | 24 (23.63%) | 8 (15.69%) | 16 (31.37%) | ||
| Others | 7 (6.76%) | 2 (3.91%) | 5 (9.81%) | ||
| Tinnitus characteristics | |||||
| Laterality (n, %) | 0.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Left | 54 (52.94%) | 27 (52.94%) | 27 (52.94%) | ||
| Right | 36 (35.29%) | 18 (35.29%) | 18 (35.29%) | ||
| Binaural | 12 (11.77%) | 6 (11.77%) | 6 (11.77%) | ||
| Duration (n, %) | 0.82 | 0.66 | |||
| Acute (<1 month) | 68 (66.66%) | 32 (62.75%) | 36 (70.59%) | ||
| Subacute (1–3 months) | 17 (16.67%) | 10 (19.61%) | 7 (13.73%) | ||
| Chronic (>3 months) | 17 (16.67%) | 9 (17.64%) | 8 (15.68%) | ||
| Tinnitus pitch (n, %) | 4.29 | 0.12 | |||
| Low (250–1000) Hz | 17 (16.67%) | 6 (11.76%) | 11 (21.57%) | ||
| Mid (1000–4000) Hz | 24 (23.53%) | 16 (31.37%) | 8 (15.69%) | ||
| High (4000–8000) Hz | 61 (59.80%) | 29 (56.87%) | 32 (62.74%) | ||
| Tinnitus loudness (dB) | 61.23±23.42 | 61.10±24.71 | 61.35±22.30 | −0.06 | 0.96 |
| Outcome measurement | |||||
| Pre-treatment THI | 45.80±21.76 | 54.04±18.45 | 37.57±21.86 | 4.11 | <0.001* |
| Post- treatment THI | 35.76±19.94 | 34.94±17.39 | 36.59±22.35 | −0.42 | 0.679 |
| THI change | 10.04±11.64 | 19.10±9.69 | 0.98±3.54 | 12.54 | <0.001* |
* There was a significant difference at .
HFGS, high-frequency gently sloping; HFSS, high-frequency steeply sloping; THI, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory.
Figure 1(Colour online) The average pure tone hearing thresholds on tinnitus ears and non-tinnitus ears in effective and non-effective groups.
Association of socio-demographic factors and audiogram configurations with effective therapy: multivariate logistic regression analysis
| Variables | B | SE | Wald | P value | OR | 95% CI | |
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Age (years) | −0.04 | 0.17 | 7.34 | 0.007* | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.99 |
| Audiogram configurations | 9.18 | 0.027* | |||||
| Flat | 1.70 | 0.61 | 7.85 | 0.005* | 5.45 | 1.67 | 17.86 |
| HFGS | 0.81 | 0.71 | 1.31 | 0.252 | 2.24 | 0.56 | 8.93 |
| HFSS | reference | 1.00 | |||||
| Others | 0.05 | 1.03 | <0.01 | 0.960 | 1.05 | 0.14 | 7.89 |
| Prior treatment THI | 0.04 | 0.01 | 12.58 | <0.001* | 1.04 | 1.02 | 1.07 |
* There was a significant difference at p<0.05.
HFGS, high-frequency gently sloping; HFSS, high-frequency steeply sloping; THI, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory.