| Literature DB >> 31122883 |
Márcia Salgado Machado1, Adriane Ribeiro Teixeira2, Sady Selaimen da Costa3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidences of possible effects of early age otitis media with effusion in the central auditory processing, emphasize the need to consider such effects also in subjects with chronic otitis media. AIM: To investigate and analyze the impact of non-cholesteatomatous chronic otitis media on central auditory processing in teenagers.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescente; Auditory perception; Auditory perception disorders; Central auditory diseases; Distúrbios da percepção auditiva; Doenças auditivas centrais; Otite média; Otitis media; Percepção auditiva; Teenager
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31122883 PMCID: PMC9422404 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.02.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1808-8686
Characterization of the sample.
| Variables | Study group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.9 ± 2.1 | 15.1 ± 2.1 | 0.569 | |
| 1.000 | |||
| Male | 22 (64.7) | 22 (64.7) | |
| Female | 12 (35.3) | 12 (35.3) | |
| 8.8 ± 1.9 | 9.3 ± 2.3 | 0.308 | |
| Age of onset OM – average ± SD | 2.24 ± 1.8 | – | |
| 0.452 | |||
| Incomplete elementary school | 15 (44.1) | 11 (32.4) | |
| Complete elementary school | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) | |
| Incomplete high school | 5 (14.7) | 6 (17.6) | |
| Complete high school | 11 (32.4) | 16 (47.1) | |
| 0.865 | |||
| Vulnerable | 16 (47.1) | 17 (50.0) | |
| Low middle class | 12 (35.3) | 10 (29.4) | |
| Middle class middle | 6 (17.6) | 7 (20.6) | |
| RE | 21.2 ± 10.8 | 5.9 ± 3.9 | <0.001 |
| LE | 21.2 ± 11.4 | 5.7 ± 3.4 | <0.001 |
| RE | 19.3 ± 9.6 | – | |
| LE | 17.7 ± 9.0 | – | |
SD, standard deviation; n, number; RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; AC, air conduction.
p ≤ 0.05 (level of statistical significance).
Comparative results of CAP tests between the study and control groups.
| Variables | Study group ( | Control group ( | Effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RE (%) | 53.2 ± 15.5 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 4.27 |
| LE (%) | 53.5 ± 15.2 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 4.33 |
| RE (%) | 29.1 ± 15.8 | 96.2 ± 6.0 | <0.001 | 5.63 |
| LE (%) | 31.8 ± 15.3 | 95.3 ± 6.1 | <0.001 | 5.46 |
| RE (%) | 96.3 ± 4.6 | 99.3 ± 1.1 | 0.001 | 0.90 |
| LE (%) | 97.6 ± 3.0 | 99.4 ± 1.1 | 0.003 | 0.80 |
| 45.6 ± 22.1 | 61.8 ± 18.0 | 0.002 | 0.81 | |
| 9.2 ± 3.6 | 11.5 ± 1.3 | 0.001 | 0.85 | |
| 14.1 ± 6.4 | 4.1 ± 1.6 | <0.001 | 2.15 | |
SD, standard deviation; n, number; ms, milliseconds; dB, Decibel; RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; SSI, Synthetic Sentence Identification; DD, Dichotic Digits; DPS, Duration Pattern Sequence; MLD, Masking Level Difference; RGDT, Random Gap Detection Test.
p ≤ 0.05 (level of statistical significance).
Figure 1Percentage changes between CAP tests in the study group. RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; SSI, Synthetic Sentence Identification; DD, Dichotic Digits; DPS, Duration Pattern Sequence; MLD, Masking Level Difference; RGDT, Random Gap Detection Test.
Comparative results of CAP tests among CG subjects and the SG subgroups with unilateral and bilateral conductive change.
| Variables | Control group ( | UNICON subgroup ( | BILCON subgroup ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RE (%) | 100 ± 0.0 | 50.7 ± 10.3 | <0.001 | 55.3 ± 18.7 | <0.001 |
| LE (%) | 100 ± 0.0 | 52.7 ± 10.9 | <0.001 | 54.2 ± 18.0 | <0.001 |
| RE (%) | 96.2 ± 6.0 | 27.3 ± 13.9 | <0.001 | 30.5 ± 17.5 | <0.001 |
| LE (%) | 95.3 ± 6.2 | 28.7 ± 9.2 | <0.001 | 34.2 ± 18.7 | <0.001 |
| RE (%) | 99.3 ± 1.1 | 95.2 ± 5.9 | <0.001 | 97.2 ± 3.1 | 0.054 |
| LE (%) | 99.4 ± 1.1 | 97.2 ± 3.4 | 0.004 | 98.0 ± 2.7 | 0.068 |
| 61.8 ± 18.0 | 46.4 ± 23.1 | 0.034 | 44.9 ± 21.9 | 0.010 | |
| 11.5 ± 1.3 | 8.4 ± 3.6 | 0.001 | 9.9 ± 3.5 | 0.082 | |
| 4.1 ± 1.6 | 13.0 ± 6.9 | <0.001 | 15.1 ± 5.9 | <0.001 | |
SD, Standard Deviation; n, number; RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; ms, milliseconds; dB, Decibel; SSI, Synthetic Sentence Identification; DD, Dichotic Digits; DPS, Duration Pattern Sequence; MLD, Masking Level Difference; RGDT, Random Gap Detection Test; UNICON, Subgroup with Unilateral Conductive Change; BILCON, Subgroup with Bilateral Conductive Change.
p ≤ 0.05 (level of statistical significance).
Figure 2Graph showing the comparative results between the means of GC tests and SG subgroups according to the type of conductive change. CAP, central auditory processing; CG, control group; UNICHL, Unilateral Conductive Hearing Loss; BILCHL, Bilateral Conductive Hearing Loss; UNIGAP, Unilateral Gap; BILGAP, Bilateral Gap; RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; SSI, Synthetic Sentence Identification; DD, Dichotic Digits; DPS, Duration Pattern Sequence; MLD, Masking Level Difference; RGDT, Random Gap Detection Test; dB, Decibels; ms, milliseconds.
Comparative results of CAP tests between CG and SG according to the family income classification.
| Variables | Vulnerable | Low middle class | Middle class middle | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SG ( | CG ( | SG ( | CG ( | SG ( | CG ( | ||||
| RE (%) | 50.0 ± 13.2 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 60.8 ± 15.1 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 46.7 ± 18.6 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 |
| LE (%) | 51.9 ± 11.7 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 59.2 ± 16.2 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 | 46.7 ± 19.7 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 |
| RE (%) | 28.8 ± 18.2 | 95.9 ± 6.2 | <0.001 | 30.0 ± 11.3 | 94.0 ± 7.0 | <0.001 | 28.3 ± 19.4 | 100 ± 0.0 | <0.001 |
| LE (%) | 30.6 ± 12.9 | 95.9 ± 6.2 | <0.001 | 35.8 ± 15.6 | 93.0 ± 6.7 | <0.001 | 26.7 ± 20.7 | 97.1 ± 4.9 | <0.001 |
| RE (%) | 94.5 ± 5.6 | 99.3 ± 1.2 | 0.005 | 97.5 ± 2.8 | 99.3 ± 1.2 | 0.083 | 98.8 ± 2.1 | 99.6 ± 0.9 | 0.368 |
| LE (%) | 97.0 ± 3.4 | 99.6 ± 1.0 | 0.011 | 98.1 ± 2.8 | 98.8 ± 1.3 | 0.531 | 98.3 ± 2.0 | 100 ± 0.0 | 0.102 |
| 42.9 ± 19.1 | 62.0 ± 16.9 | 0.005 | 47.8 ± 23.3 | 55.3 ± 22.2 | 0.449 | 48.3 ± 29.8 | 70.4 ± 11.3 | 0.136 | |
| 8.9 ± 4.2 | 11.4 ± 1.4 | 0.033 | 9.3 ± 3.2 | 11.6 ± 1.3 | 0.041 | 10.0 ± 2.8 | 11.4 ± 1.5 | 0.270 | |
| 16.0 ± 7.0 | 3.9 ± 1.6 | <0.001 | 12.4 ± 3.3 | 4.6 ± 2.1 | <0.001 | 12.8 ± 8.8 | 3.6 ± 0.61 | 0.050 | |
SG, Study Group; CG, Control Group; SD, Standard Deviation; n, number; ms, milliseconds; dB, Decibel; RE, Right Ear; LE, Left Ear; SSI, Synthetic Sentence Identification; DD, Dichotic Digits; DPS, Duration Pattern Sequence; MLD, Masking Level Difference; RGDT, Random Gap Detection Test; dB, Decibels.
p ≤ 0.05 (level of statistical significance).