Advertisement

Outcome parameters in speech audiometry: retrospective analysis of data and reporting quality in clinical studies

  • Joseph MorgensternEmail author
  • Susen Lailach
  • Thomas Zahnert
  • Marcus Neudert
Otology
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The use of standardized outcome parameters is essential for the comparability of clinical studies. Pure-tone audiometry and speech audiometry are widely used, but there is no systematic evaluation of the outcome parameters in clinical application. Nevertheless, there is presumably a great heterogeneity especially in the field of speech audiometry. This study presents a snapshot of the current situation of documentation and usage of outcome parameters in otologic research.

Study design

Retrospective study of existing literature analyzing common speech audiometric test material and procedure

Main outcome measures

Intervention Studies from 2012 to 2016 concerning hearing ability were eligible for evaluation. Studies were analyzed with regard to study design, pathology and intervention, speech audiometric parameters, pure-tone audiometry, implementation of reporting standards and journal related data.

Results

279 studies were included. Over 50% of the analyzed studies lacked proper documentation. In the remaining studies, there was a broad variance concerning the documented speech audiometric parameters, most often with a fixed presentation level of 65 dB SPL.

Conclusion

The lack of generally used standards for reporting hearing outcomes makes it difficult to compare results of different clinical studies. An adequate description of the methods would be a first and important step in improving reports on audiological outcomes.

Keywords

Speech audiometry Reporting quality Hearing implant Vestibular schwannoma Hearing loss Speech discrimination test 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

As it is a retrospective study of existing literature, this article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Therefore, an institutional ethic board review was not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Thorp MA, Shehab ZP, Bance ML, Rutka JA (2003) The AAO-HNS Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium Guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Meniere’s disease: have they been applied in the published literature of the last decade? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 28:173–176.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00687.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lailach S, Zahnert T, Neudert M (2017) Data and reporting quality in tympanoplasty and ossiculoplasty studies. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 157:281–288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817707719 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AAO-HNS (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma (vestibular schwannoma): committee on hearing and equilibrium. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:179–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70101-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    AAO-HNS (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of results of treatment of conductive hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:186–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70103-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR (2012) A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:803–807.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812458401 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardner G, Robertson JH (1988) Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 97:55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000348948809700110 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Black B (2003) Reporting results in ossiculoplasty. Otol Neurotol 24:534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis H (1948) The articulation area and the social adequacy index for hearing. Laryngoscope 58:761–778.  https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-194808000-00002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehnhardt E, Laszig R, Hesse G (2009) Praxis der Audiometrie, 9th edn. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA (1998) Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9:95–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medwetsky L, Sanderson D, Young D (1999) A national survey of audiology clinical practices, Part 1. Hear Rev 6:24–32Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamm CA, Morgan DE, Dirks DD (1983) Accuracy of adaptive procedure estimates of PF-max level. J Speech Hear Disord 48:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Müller J, Plontke SK, Rahne T (2017) Speech audiometric outcome parameters in clinical trials on hearing improvement. HNO 65:211–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0298-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brandy WT (1966) Reliability of voice tests of speech discrimination. J Speech Lang Hear Res 9:461.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0903.461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Universital Hospital Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav CarusTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations