A Novel Representation of Audiological and Subjective Findings for Acoustical, Bone Conduction and Direct Drive Hearing Solutions.
bone conduction implant
hearing aids
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2023
01 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
10
10
2022
revised:
15
11
2022
accepted:
28
02
2023
medline:
30
3
2023
entrez:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The benefit of hearing rehabilitation is often measured using audiological tests or subjective questionnaires/interviews. It is important to consider both aspects in order to evaluate the overall benefits. Currently, there is no standardized method for reporting combined audiological and patient reported subjective outcome measures in clinical practice. Therefore, this study focuses on showing the patient's audiological, as well as subjective outcomes in one graph using data from an existing study. The present paper illustrated a graph presenting data on four quadrants with audiological and subjective findings. These quadrants represented speech comprehension in quiet (unaided vs. aided) as WRS% at 65 dB SPL, speech recognition in noise (unaided vs. aided) as SRT dB SNR, sound field threshold (unaided vs. aided) as PTA As an example, the HEARRING graph in this paper represented audiological and subjective datasets on a single patient level or a cohort of patients for an active bone conduction hearing implant solution. The graph offered the option to follow the user's performance in time. The HEARRING graph allowed representation of a combination of audiological measures with patient reported outcomes in one single graph, indicating the overall benefit of the intervention. In addition, the correlation and consistency between some results (e.g., aided threshold and aided WRS) can be better visualized. Those users who lacked performance benefits on one or more parameters and called for further insight could be visually identified.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The benefit of hearing rehabilitation is often measured using audiological tests or subjective questionnaires/interviews. It is important to consider both aspects in order to evaluate the overall benefits. Currently, there is no standardized method for reporting combined audiological and patient reported subjective outcome measures in clinical practice. Therefore, this study focuses on showing the patient's audiological, as well as subjective outcomes in one graph using data from an existing study.
METHOD
METHODS
The present paper illustrated a graph presenting data on four quadrants with audiological and subjective findings. These quadrants represented speech comprehension in quiet (unaided vs. aided) as WRS% at 65 dB SPL, speech recognition in noise (unaided vs. aided) as SRT dB SNR, sound field threshold (unaided vs. aided) as PTA
RESULTS
RESULTS
As an example, the HEARRING graph in this paper represented audiological and subjective datasets on a single patient level or a cohort of patients for an active bone conduction hearing implant solution. The graph offered the option to follow the user's performance in time.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The HEARRING graph allowed representation of a combination of audiological measures with patient reported outcomes in one single graph, indicating the overall benefit of the intervention. In addition, the correlation and consistency between some results (e.g., aided threshold and aided WRS) can be better visualized. Those users who lacked performance benefits on one or more parameters and called for further insight could be visually identified.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36983644
pii: jpm13030462
doi: 10.3390/jpm13030462
pmc: PMC10058515
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Audiol Neurootol. 2018;23(6):316-325
pubmed: 30650421
Audiol Neurootol. 2018;23(2):105-115
pubmed: 30196279
Cochlear Implants Int. 2018 May;19(3):131-141
pubmed: 29299970
J Am Acad Audiol. 2018 Oct;29(9):835-846
pubmed: 30278868
Otol Neurotol. 2013 Sep;34(7):1181-5
pubmed: 23921921
Otol Neurotol. 2021 Sep 1;42(8):1208-1215
pubmed: 34191781
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2013 Jan;44(1):73-88
pubmed: 22869089
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Mar;37(3):252-66
pubmed: 26796211
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Oct;274(10):3593-3598
pubmed: 28756570
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jul;86:240-5
pubmed: 27260613
J Int Adv Otol. 2016 Dec;12(3):241-246
pubmed: 28031155
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Jul;38(6):809-814
pubmed: 28383463
Acta Otolaryngol. 2016;136(1):23-33
pubmed: 26493073
Int J Audiol. 2004 Feb;43(2):85-99
pubmed: 15035561
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Oct;101:81-86
pubmed: 28964316
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Jun;40(5):571-577
pubmed: 31083074
Int J Audiol. 2013 Jun;52(6):409-12
pubmed: 23651462
HNO. 2017 Nov;65(11):901-909
pubmed: 28455538
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Apr;40(4):430-435
pubmed: 30870349
Otol Neurotol. 2004 Jul;25(4):436-42
pubmed: 15241217
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Sep;40(8):1059-1067
pubmed: 31356489