老年听力障碍筛查量表在老年性聋调查中的应用与相关性分析

目的　探讨老年听力障碍筛查（h e a r i n g handicap inventory for the elderly-screening,HHIE-S）量表在老年人听力筛查中的应用价值,并分析其敏感性和特 异性。方法　对400例60岁以上老年人进行HHIE-S问卷调查及纯音听阈测试,以纯音测听较好耳的平均听阈,计算听力下降水平,分析HHIE-S在老年人听力筛查中的应用价值;依据世界卫生组织（WHO1997）听力障碍分级标准,并参照美国言语听力协会听力筛查指南标准,将HHIE-S量表得分＞８分定义为存在听力障碍,探讨HHIE-S量表对不同程度听力损失老年人听力筛查的敏感性和特异性及与纯音测听的相关性。结果　HHIE-S量表可以对老年人的听力障碍进行筛查,反映了听力下降对受试者生理和言语交流的影响。①HHIE-S量表敏感性分别是轻度听力损失65.70%、中度听力损失78.40%、重度听力损失98.90%。②HHIE-S量表特异性分别为轻度听力损失94.00%、中度听力损失82.80%、重度听力损失65.60%。③对听力损失阳性预测值分别为轻度98.70%、中度94.80%和重度51.10%;假阳性率分别为轻度6.00%、中度17.20%和重度34.40%;假阴性率分别为轻度34.30%、中度21.60%和重度1.10%。④HHIE-S量表与老年人听力损失程度相关系数分别为0.215、0.586和0.391（P 均<0.001）,有统计学意义。结论　HHIE-S量表简单易行,对于评估听力损失程度具有较高敏感性和特异性,与纯音测听有很好相关性,在老年人听力筛查中具有实 用性和有效性。     

中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表简化潜力研究

目的 简化中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表（hearing handicap inventory for elderly-screening, HHIE-S）,分析完整版和简化版量表与纯音听阈结果的相关性。方法 对北京和上海659例社区居民（北京173例,上海486例）发放完整版HHIE-S量表,对北京173位居民测试纯音听阈。采用限定性主成分分析法评估量表简化潜力并得到简化版HHIE-S量表,比较两个版本与纯音听阈间的相关性。结果 (1) HHIE-S量表（10项）总得分、情绪维度（5项）、社交场景维度（5项）得分均与纯音听力阈值呈极显著相关（P<0.001）;(2)HHIE-S量表限定性主成分分析结果显示,仅保留5个量表项目仍能保持80%量表可变性;(3)完整版和简化版HHIE-S量表得分与纯音听力阈值呈极显著相关性（P<0.001）。结论 中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表存在简化潜力,简化后量表保留原量表1、2、3、6、8题,仍与纯音听力阈值存在较好相关性。     

中文版筛选型老年听力障碍量表在老年性聋中的应用

目的探讨中文版筛选型老年听力障碍量表(HHIE-S)在老年性聋中的应用价值。方法对入选的170名非独居老年人及其亲属发放自评和代理者HHIE-S量表,并测其纯音听阈,分析量表得分与听阈之间的相关性。结果两份量表得分与纯音听阈间均呈正相关性。以25d B作为听力下降标准,HHIE-S量表对老年聋的特异性值为95.24%,对老年性聋的敏感性为59.06%,并随着听力损失级别的提高,量表的敏感性增加。共有149人(占总数87.65%)通过测听表明有不同程度的听力损失,轻至中度聋的患者中有50人得分>8,提示有听力障碍,10-22分的有39人,提示为轻至中度聋,有11人得分在24-40分之间,提示为重度听力障碍;听阈为重度聋及以上的患者共有38人得分>8,提示有听力障碍,10-22分的有9人,提示为轻至中度聋,29人得分在24-40分之间,提示为重度听力障碍。结论中文版HHIE-S量表在老年性聋筛查中表现出较好的敏感性和特异性,与纯音测听具有较强相关性,可以用于老年性聋的早期筛查,有利于推动老年性聋患者早期积极治疗和康复。     

成人听力障碍筛查量表和噪声下数字言语测试在听力损失患者中的应用[论著]

目的　研究成人听力障碍筛查量表（hearing handicap inventory for adult-screening,HHIA-S）、噪声下数字言语测试（digits in noise,DIN）与听力损失的相关性,分析HHIA-S与DIN在听力损失诊断中的灵敏度和特异度。方法　本研究招募听力正常者29名、感音神经性听力损失患者38例,按双耳纯音听阈平均值PTA0.5～4 kHz分为轻度组19例,中度组10例,重度组9例,依次完成纯音听阈测试、声导抗测试、听力损失自我报告、HHIA-S量表以及DIN测试。采用线性相关分析HHIA-S得分、DIN阈值与纯音听阈平均值的相关性,采用受试者工作特性曲线（receiver operating characteristic,ROC）及曲线下面积（area under the curve,AUC）确定DIN在最佳诊断截点下的灵敏度和特异度。结果  ①本组受试者HHIA-S得分、DIN阈值与纯音平均听阈PTA0.5～4 kHz之间均呈显著相关性（P <0.01）;②将HHIA-S得分＞8分定义为存在听力障碍,结果显示HHIA-S量表发现听力损失的灵敏度为0.684,特异度为0.967;③DIN的最佳诊断截点（cut-off）为-16.1 dB,判断听力损失的灵敏度为0.894,特异度为1,均高于HHIA-S量表及听力损失自我报告。结论　DIN作为一种快速、有效且经济、便捷的听力筛查手段,其灵敏度和特异度均高于成人听力障碍筛查量表及听力损失自我报告。     

单耳听力损失患者听力障碍量表评分与纯音听阈相关性研究

目的 探讨单耳听力损失(unilateral hearing loss, UHL)患者听力障碍量表(hearing handicap inventory, HHI)评分与纯音听阈的相关性及影响因素。方法 纳入本院门诊就诊未行助听干预的UHL患者56例，听力减退病程超过1个月，好耳气导听阈<20 dB HL,差耳听阈≥35 dB HL。采用病史调查表、视觉模拟量表(visual analog scale, VAS)及听力障碍量表了解患者听力、交流障碍程度，并与纯音听阈比较，分析其特征。结果 56例患者中，伴耳鸣患者27例(48.21%),自觉伴睡眠障碍者23例(41.07%),同时患有其他慢性病者26例(46.43%)。56例好耳平均听阈为10.99±4.31 dB HL,差耳平均听阈为66.32±26.21 dB HL,HHI平均得分20.36±15.41分，VAS平均得分3.64±2.34分。纯音听阈与HHI评分、VAS评分无明显相关性(P>0.05),HHI量表得分与VAS评分的相关系数为0.77(P<0.01)。HHI量表<17分(无听力障碍)者30例占5...     

单句询问与中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表在社区50岁以上人群听力筛查中的应用

目的：探讨中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表（Chinese version of hearing handicap inventory for the eld-erly－screening ,中文版 HHIE－S）和单句询问应用于社区50岁以上人群听力筛查的意义。方法使用中文版HHIE－S 量表及单句询问“您现在觉得听力有问题吗？”两种方法对某社区570例50～85岁中、老年人进行听力筛查,以0．5、1、2、4 kHz 平均纯音听阈（pure－tone audiometry,PTA）作为金标准,分别在 PTA ＞25、＞40、＞60 dB HL 三种不同听力损失分级条件下,计算单句询问及中文版 HHIE－S 量表的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值及阴性预测值,比较两种方法对不同程度听力损失者的检出能力。结果570例中,PTA＞25 dB HL 478例,占83．86％,中文版 HHIE－S 量表＞8分者315例,占55．46％,单句询问阳性者299例,占52．46％。在三个不同听力损失分级条件下中文版 HHIE－S 量表＞8分的敏感性分别为61％、85％、96％,特异性分别为72％、58％、47％,单句询问阳性组的敏感性为58％、81％、100％,特异性为75％、61％、50％,两种听力筛查方法经统计分析比较差异无统计学意义（P ＞0．05）。结论中文版 HHIE－S 量表与单句询问方法对中重度听力损失中、老年人的筛查都有较高的敏感性,可根据研究目的用于临床及基层大样本中、老年人群的听力筛查。     

噪声下数字言语测试联合听力障碍筛查量表在职业性噪声性听力损失患者中的应用

目的 探究噪声下数字言语测试(digital speech test under noise,DIN)联合听力障碍筛查量表(hearing impairment screening scule,HHIA-S)在职业性噪声性听力损失患者中的应用价值。方法 选择职业性噪声性听力损失患者102例作为研究组,按双耳纯音听阈平均值PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}(双耳在500、1000、2000、4000 Hz纯音听阈平均值)分为轻度组(26～40 dB HL)51例、中度组(41～60 dB HL)27例、重度组(61～80 dB HL)24例;另选取听力正常健康体检者90例作为对照组。全部行纯音听阈测试、声导抗测试、DIN及HHIA-S测试。比较各组各指标测试结果,并绘制受试者工作特性曲线(receiver operating chara cteristc curve,ROC)分析其相应的关系。结果 研究组PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}、DIN及HHIA-S评分均显著高于对照组高(P<0.05)。其中重度组PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}、D...     

不同程度感音神经性听力损失儿童的Chirp-ASSR测试结果分析

目的 观察不同程度感音神经性听力损失儿童Chirp声听性稳态反应(Chirp auditory steady-state responses,Chirp-ASSR)的特点,探讨Chirp-ASSR测试的临床意义.方法 对136例(272耳)5～10岁不同程度感音神经性听力损失儿童进行纯音听阈测试(pure tone audiometry,PTA)和Chirp-ASSR测试,根据500、1 000、2 000和4 000 Hz的平均听阈,将受试者分为四组,即20～dB HL组、40～dB HL组、60～dB HL组和≥80dB HL组,比较不同程度感音神经性听力损失儿童各频率纯音听阈与Chirp-ASSR反应阈的相关性.结果 ①纯音听阈≥80 dB HL组的Chirp-ASSR反应阈值比纯音听阈值高,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).②PTA和Chirp-ASSR的相关系数γ随着听力损失程度加重而逐渐降低,随着测试频率的增加有增大的趋势,在500 Hz和4 000 Hz之间差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 Chirp-ASSR有频率特异性,能够较好的反映听力水平,特别在轻度、中度和重度感音神经性听力损失患者中更明显.     

自动纯音测听在听力正常和不同程度听力损失者中的应用

目的 研究自动与手动纯音测听结果在听力正常和不同程度听力损失者间的相关性。方法 受试者60例（120耳）,年龄范围14～84岁,在标准隔声室内进行自动和手动纯音气导听阈测试,测试顺序随机。测试频率为0.25、0.5、1、2、4和8 kHz6个频率。结果 120耳均完成测试,获得705个有效听阈数据,在Bland-Altman图中超出95%置信区间的数据为33个,占全部数据的4.6%,表明手动和自动纯音测听结果的一致性较好。听力正常组、轻度、中度和重度及以上听力损失组两种测试结果的相关系数分别为0.87、0.90、0.87、0.93和0.96,P均<0.01。不同频率听阈的差值,在0.25和8 kHz处最大。40岁以下组、40～60岁组和60岁以上组,自动与手动纯音测听阈值的相关系数均>0.9,具有统计学意义。结论 在不同听力水平和不同年龄分组的受试者中,自动与手动纯音测听具有很好的一致性。     

老年性聋患者的认知功能影响因素探究

目的 通过评估老年性聋患者的认知功能,分析其相关影响因素。方法 收集就诊于郑州大学第一附属医院耳科门诊的老年性聋患者112例,同期健康者112例。使用简易精神智能状态量表(mini-mental state examination, MMSE)评估认知功能,老年人听觉障碍筛查量表(the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening version, HHIE-S)和纯音听阈测定评估听力水平,并利用Logistic回归对老年性聋患者的认知功能行相关影响因素分析。结果 老年性聋组MMSE评分27(24,28)分低于健康组28(27,29)分(Z=-4.371,P<0.001)。老年性聋患者不同年龄、学历、职业性质、耳聋病程、HHIE-S评分、纯音平均听阈、言语识别率的MMSE评分存在差异(P<0.05);学历(β=-7.151,P=0.012),耳聋病程(β=0.542,P=0.033)、HHIE-S评分(β=0.132,P=0.041)、纯音平均听阈(β=0.08,P=0.046)与老年性聋患者认知功能障碍显著相关...     

Analysing use of the Chinese HHIE-S for hearing screening of elderly in a northeastern industrial area of China

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the use of Chinese version of HHIE-S as a hearing screening tool for the elderly in an industrial area in northeast China. Design: Prevalence, sensitivity and specificity of Chinese version of HHIE-S were calculated. Factors that had impact on HHIE-S were analysed. Study sample: Five hundred and seventy Mandarin speaking participants, aged from 50 to 85 years were included. They were tested with pure tone audiometry and Chinese version of HHIE-S. Results: The prevalence of hearing handicap was 55.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of HHIE-S were 84.5% and 58.3% respectively when the pass/fail criteria were set at PTA^0.5–4kHz >40 dBHL. In general, HHIE-S total and subscale scores were significantly associated with severity of hearing impairment. After stratified by severity of hearing impairment, both the prevalence of reported handicap and the scores of HHIE-S were not significantly associated with age. Male participants had significantly higher HHIE-S scores than female participants did. Conclusions: The Chinese version of HHIE-S contributes useful information to identifying hearing handicap and addressing the rehabilitative needs in the elderly in an industrial city in Mainland China.     

老年性痴呆患者的听觉损害

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pure tone hearing threshold and word recognition score of senile dementia of the Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, and to analyze the relationship between hearing loss and the cognition impairment. METHODS: Pure tone audiometry, word recognition score (WRS), acoustic immittance and auditory brainstem response (ABR) are used to evaluate the auditory function of 43 patients with AD and 50 subjects of the control group. The confounding factors are controlled. RESULTS: The average age of 43 dementia patients was 72.7 +/- 6.4, and 69.7% was female. Bilateral hearing thresholds are similar in all subjects. All indices but Mini-mental scale of equastionnaire (MMSE) of patients and control group were not statistically different. There was no significant difference in pure tone audiometry (PTA), PTA2 (dB HL, mean +/- s) and WRS (%, mean +/- s) between the two groups (P > 0.05), therefore the hearing threshold of AD group (PTA = 26.3 +/- 8.5, PTA2 = 29.1 +/- 8.7, WRS = 85.5 +/- 15.5) is lower than that of control group (PTA = 23.2 +/- 10.6, PTA2 = 26.2 +/- 11.8, WRS = 87.6 +/- 16.8). No significant difference was found between the two groups in audiometry reliability, acoustic immittance and ABR (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found between the peripheral hearing dysfunction of AD patients and that normal elderly people, i.e., PTA, PTA2 and WRS were not related to MMSE.     

多频稳态诱发电位测试对中重度以下听力损失的评估价值

目的了解多频稳态诱发电位测试在客观听力评价中的准确性。方法对听力正常人、轻度、中度和中重度感音神经性聋的患者共76例耳分别行纯音测听、听觉脑干诱发电位和多频稳态诱发电位测试,对三者阈值进行方差分析、Baye’s准则下多类判别分析。结果由ASSR结果推测客观听力状况所犯的判断错误,在听力正常组,判别符合正确率分别100%,轻度聋组为92.3%,中度聋组判别正确率为88.9%,中-重度聋组判别正确率为83.3%。结论多频稳态诱发电位测试在客观听力评价中有较好的准确率,值得在实际工作中推广应用。     

Relationship between self-reported hearing and measured hearing impairment in an elderly population in Finland

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the Finnish version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire and a simple single-question method in detecting hearing loss. Design: We compared the HHIE-S score and the single question with audiometry results. By analysing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the HHIE-S scores we estimated the appropriate cut-off points for the different degrees of hearing loss. Study Sample: 164 home-dwelling subjects in the age cohorts of 70, 75, 80 and 85 years in an industrialized town in Finland filled in the questionnaire, and attended the audiometry. Results: For the detection of moderate or worse hearing loss (i.e., pure tone average at 0.5-4 kHz frequencies >40 dB), the HHIE-S cut-off score of >8 had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 59.7%. The single question had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 70.7%. Thus, the single question was equally sensitive and more specific in detecting moderate or worse hearing loss than the HHIE-S score. However, for the detection of mild hearing loss (i.e., pure tone average >25 dB), the HHIE-S was more sensitive but less specific than the single question.

Sumario

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la utilidad de la versión finlandesa del Cuestionario para la Identificación de Discapacidad Auditiva de Adultos Mayores (HHIE-S) y la de un método simple de una sola pregunta para detectar pérdidas auditivas. Diseño: Comparamos la puntuación del HHIE-S y de la pregunta aislada con los resultados audiométricos. Al analizar las curvas caracter sticas de operación del receptor (ROC) y las puntuaciones del HHIE-S, estimamos los puntos de corte apropiados para los diferentes grados de pérdida auditiva. Muestra de Estudio: Llenaron el cuestionario 164 sujetos que vivían en sus propias casas, pertenecientes a las cohortes de edad de 70, 75, 80 y 85 ańos, en una localidad industrializada de Finlandia y que se sometieron a la audiometría. Resultados: Para la identificación de pérdidas moderadas o peores (p. ej. promedio de tonos puros en las frecuencias de 0.5–4 kHz, >40 dB), la puntuación para el corte del HHIE-S en >8, tuvo una sensibilidad de 100% y una especificidad de 59.7%. La pregunta aislada tuvo una sensibilidad de 100% y una especificidad de 70.7%. Por esto, la pregunta aislada fue igualmente sensible pero más específica para la identificación de pérdidas auditivas moderadas o peores que la puntuación del HHIE-S. No obstante, para la identificación de pérdidas leves (p. ej. promedio de tonos puros >25 dB), el HHIE-S tuvo mayor sensibilidad aunque su especificidad fue menor que para la pregunta aislada.     

Cross-cultural adaptation of an Arabic version of the 10-item hearing handicap inventory

Objective: The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt an Arabic version of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly - screening (HHIE-S). Design: The HHIE-S was translated following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, and pretested in 20 elderly patients with hearing impairment. Next, the adapted Arabic HHIE-S underwent psychometric evaluation. The results were confirmed by pure-tone audiometer (PTA) examination. The patients completed the HHIE-S again after one hour. The validation of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), (construct validity), and intraclass correlation coefficients (repeatability) was performed. Study sample: Twenty elderly subjects with hearing impairment were recruited for the pretesting stage, and 100 elderly subjects were recruited for the psychometric evaluation stage. Patients with acute illness, functional dependency, cognitive impairment, and previous users of hearing aids were excluded. Results: The adapted Arabic HHIE-S showed good internal consistency (α = 0.902). Construct validity was good, as high correlations were found between the scale and the PTA outcome (r = 0.688, p = 0.000). Repeatability was high (ICC = 0.986). Conclusions: This study showed that the adapted Arabic HHIE-S is a valid and reliable questionnaire for the assessment of handicapping hearing impairment in Egyptian elderly patients.     

Validation of the French version of HHIE-S (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening) questionnaire in French over-60 year-olds

IntroductionThe HHIE-S (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening) is widely used for hearing-loss disorder in the elderly. The main objective of the present study was to validate a French version. The secondary objective was to determinate a cut-off score as indication for hearing rehabilitation.MethodsWe translated the HHIE-S into French, respecting the cross-cultural adaptation process for medical questionnaires. An observational study assessed the translation (10 questions, scored from 0 to 40) used for screening purposes in a prospective cohort, aged ≥ 60 years, with comparison to pure tone, speech-in-silence and speech-in-noise audiometry. Subjects were considered hearing-impaired if the pure-tone average at 500, 1,000, 2,000 and 4,000 Hz was > 20 dB HL in one or both ears.ResultsWe tested 294 subjects (mean age = 67 ± 6 years). Hearing loss prevalence was 34.7 %. Cronbach's alpha (test reliability) was high (0.84). Taking HHIE-S score > 8/40 as cut-off defining hearing loss, sensitivity was 80.4%, specificity 85.4 %, positive predictive value 74.5 % and negative predictive value 89.1 %. Seventy-three subjects (24.8 %) had theoretic indications for hearing aids, optimally detected by HHIE-S score > 16/40 (88,4 %).ConclusionOur study validated the French version of the HHIE-S. This tool could be useful in screening for age-induced hearing loss in the elderly French population.     

基于决策树智能算法的2步纯音听力筛查在社区老年人中的应用

目的探索基于决策树智能算法的2步纯音听力筛查在基层医疗单位大范围快速检出中度及以上听力损失者的可行性和科学性。方法对某社区399例老年人进行2步纯音听力筛查(即用0.5 kHz、47 dB HL和2 kHz、42 dB HL两个固定频率和强度的纯音分2步测听)及中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表(Chinese version of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly screening scale,CHHIE-S)调查,分析筛查出的老年听障者在不同年龄段和性别的分布,以及纯音听力筛查结果与CHHIE-S量表得分的关系,并与既往文献中的结果进行比较。结果使用2步纯音听力筛查对本组老年人中度及以上听力损失的筛出率为29.82%(119/399),除去敏感度误差后,与既往文献报道的用传统标准纯音测听检测社区老年人中度及以上听力损失的检出率(分别为39.32%和39.91%)比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.052和P=0.594);中度及以上听力损失老年人的检出率随年龄增加而升高(P=0.003),男、女性检出率差异无统计学意义(P=0.067),与文献[年龄χ²=21.89,CI-1.8~19.1;男(34.8%),女(20.5%),CI-0.60~1.23]报道一致;纯音听力筛查结果与CHHIE-S得分显著相关(r=0.218,P<0.001),支持2步纯音听力筛查的内敛效度,与文献报道一致(r=0.392,P<0.001)。结论在具备基本测听设备的条件下,将基于决策树智能算法的2步纯音听力筛查用于常规老年人体检中,可以成为一种科学的、有潜力的在基层社区医疗机构推广应用的老年人听力服务模式。     

Bilateral sensorineural hearing disorders in children: etiology of deafness and evaluation of hearing tests

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the etiology of bilateral sensorineural hearing disorders in children and to evaluate the performed hearing tests by comparison of the results of the objective and subjective tests. METHODS: The medical history and the hearing tests (behavioral observation audiometry, acoustic evoked potentials and pure tone audiometry) of 106 bilaterally hearing impaired children were analyzed in a retrospective follow-up study. RESULTS: The total group included 52 males and 54 females. The ages at first diagnosis ranged from 4 months to 11 years with a mean age of 42 months and a median of 33 months. The degree of hearing loss for the better hearing ear was mild in one child, moderate in 28 children, severe in 29 children, profound in 32 children and total in 16 children. The delay between the first examination and diagnosis ranged from 0 to 597 days with a mean of 83 days and a median of 28 days. In 47 children (44%) no cause of hearing impairment could be determined. Nineteen children (18%) had a history of familial hearing loss, 40 (38%) suffered from acquired hearing loss (seven children had prenatal causes, 21 perinatal and 12 postnatal). A comparison between behavioral observation audiometry and brainstem evoked response audiometry revealed a statistically good agreement. Twenty-nine children (32%) showed progressive hearing loss, which was defined as a threshold shift of +10 dB or more in the pure tone average in at least one ear. CONCLUSIONS: In a significant number of children with early hearing impairments the etiology still remains uncertain. Further research in the field of genetic disorders will diminish this number. Evaluation of hearing tests showed that behavioral observation audiometry still is an excellent tool in the hands of an experienced examiner. The age at identification of hearing disorders in industrialized countries still is unacceptably high. To obtain ideal care of hearing impaired children, universal neonatal hearing screening programs are mandatory.