Detection of pseudohypacusis: A prospective, randomized study of the use of otoacoustic emissions

Balatsouras, DG; Kaberos, A; Korres, S; Kandiloros, D; Ferekidis, E; Economou, C

dc.contributor.author	Balatsouras, DG	en
dc.contributor.author	Kaberos, A	en
dc.contributor.author	Korres, S	en
dc.contributor.author	Kandiloros, D	en
dc.contributor.author	Ferekidis, E	en
dc.contributor.author	Economou, C	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:53:06Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:53:06Z
dc.date.issued	2003	en
dc.identifier.issn	0196-0202	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/26855
dc.subject.classification	Otorhinolaryngology	en
dc.subject.other	NONORGANIC HEARING-LOSS	en
dc.subject.other	BRAIN-STEM RESPONSES	en
dc.subject.other	THRESHOLDS	en
dc.subject.other	AUDIOMETRY	en
dc.subject.other	AUDIOGRAM	en
dc.title	Detection of pseudohypacusis: A prospective, randomized study of the use of otoacoustic emissions	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2003	en
heal.abstract	Objectives: This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of transient otoacoustic emissions in an audiological protocol used in the evaluation of patients suspicious of pseudohypacusis. Design: This was a prospective study of 72 adult patients suspicious of pseudohypacusis on the grounds of case history and inconsistent audiometric results. The subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment group or control group. The treatment group consisted of 42 patients who underwent a four-stage protocol that included (1) standard speech and pure-tone audiometry, (2) transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and tympanometry, (3) repeat modified pure-tone audiometry, and (4) auditory brain stem response (ABR) audiometry. The control group consisted of 30 patients, who underwent an identical protocol except that Stage 2 (TEOAEs and tympanometry) was omitted. The main outcome measure was the mean exaggeration level defined as the difference in mean pure tone average (PTA) between the initial and the repeat session (mean PTA(initial) minus mean PTA(repeat)). Results: The mean PTA (average threshold at 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz) on repeat audiometry was significantly better than the mean PTA obtained on the initial evaluation for each group. However, the mean exaggeration level was significantly greater for the treatment group (35.2 dB HL) than for the control group (11.0 dB HL). In addition, there was no significant difference between the mean PTA(repeat) (32.7 dB HL) and the mean click-evoked ABR threshold (31.6 dB nHL) for the treatment group whereas the mean PTA(repeat) (52.9 dB HL) was significantly poorer than the click evoked ABR threshold (29.2 dB nHL) for the control group. Conclusions: The inclusion of TEOAEs and tympanometry in an audiological protocol used in the evaluation of patients suspicious of pseudohypacusis resulted in a significantly greater threshold improvement on repeat modified pure-tone audiometry when compared to the improvement observed for a control group in which these tests were not performed.	en
heal.publisher	LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS	en
heal.journalName	EAR AND HEARING	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000187163400006	en
dc.identifier.volume	24	en
dc.identifier.issue	6	en
dc.identifier.spage	518	en
dc.identifier.epage	527	en