Penny R Hill-Feltham1, Martin L Johansson2,3, William E Hodgetts4, Amberley V Ostevik4, Brian J McKinnon5, Peter Monksfield6, Ravi Sockalingam7, Tracy Wright6, James R Tysome8,9. 1. Audiology Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Oticon Medical, Askim, Sweden. 4. Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 5. Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery Department, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA. 6. ENT Department, University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 7. Oticon Medical Inc, Somerset, NJ, USA. 8. The Cambridge Hearing Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 9. Otolaryngology Department, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rehabilitation options for conductive and mixed hearing loss are continually expanding, but without standard outcome measures comparison between different treatments is difficult. To meaningfully inform clinicians and patients core outcome sets (COS), determined via a recognised methodology, are needed. Following our previous work that identified hearing, physical, economic and psychosocial as core areas of a future COS, the AURONET group reviewed hearing outcome measures used in existing literature and assigned them into different domains within the hearing core area. DESIGN: Scoping review. STUDY SAMPLE: Literature including hearing outcome measurements for the treatment of conductive and/or mixed hearing loss. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1434 studies, with 278 subsequently selected for inclusion. A total of 837 hearing outcome measures were reported and grouped into nine domains. The largest domain constituted pure-tone threshold measurements accounting for 65% of the total outcome measures extracted, followed by the domains of speech testing (20%) and questionnaires (9%). Studies of hearing implants more commonly included speech tests or hearing questionnaires compared with studies of middle ear surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of outcome measures are currently used, highlighting the importance of developing a COS to inform individual practice and reporting in trials/research.
OBJECTIVE: Rehabilitation options for conductive and mixed hearing loss are continually expanding, but without standard outcome measures comparison between different treatments is difficult. To meaningfully inform clinicians and patients core outcome sets (COS), determined via a recognised methodology, are needed. Following our previous work that identified hearing, physical, economic and psychosocial as core areas of a future COS, the AURONET group reviewed hearing outcome measures used in existing literature and assigned them into different domains within the hearing core area. DESIGN: Scoping review. STUDY SAMPLE: Literature including hearing outcome measurements for the treatment of conductive and/or mixed hearing loss. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1434 studies, with 278 subsequently selected for inclusion. A total of 837 hearing outcome measures were reported and grouped into nine domains. The largest domain constituted pure-tone threshold measurements accounting for 65% of the total outcome measures extracted, followed by the domains of speech testing (20%) and questionnaires (9%). Studies of hearing implants more commonly included speech tests or hearing questionnaires compared with studies of middle ear surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of outcome measures are currently used, highlighting the importance of developing a COS to inform individual practice and reporting in trials/research.
Authors: Katarzyna B Cywka; Piotr H Skarzynski; Bartlomiej Krol; Stavros Hatzopoulos; Henryk Skarzynski Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 3.236