The Feasibility and Reliability of a Digits-in-Noise Test in the Clinical Follow-Up of Children With Mild to Profound Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVES: Speech perception in noise is an important aspect of the rehabilitation of children with hearing loss. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and reliability of the Dutch digits-in-noise (DIN) test in the clinical follow-up of children with hearing aids (HAs) and/or cochlear implants (CIs). A second aim of the study was to gain insight in the speech perception in noise performance of children with different degrees of hearing loss. DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed DIN test data of Dutch-speaking children with hearing loss (N = 188; 5 to 18 years old). A free-field version of the DIN-test was used. Children with open-set phoneme recognition in quiet of >70% at 65 dB SPL (best aided condition) were included. Ages ranged from 5 to 18 years old. All were experienced HA or CI users and had used their device(s) for at least 1 year before the measurement in the study. The DIN-test was performed in the framework of a clinical rehabilitation program. During testing, children wore their own devices with normal daily programs. RESULTS: The average speech reception threshold (SRT) was -3.6 dB (SD 3.6) for the first list and significantly improved to -4.0 dB (SD 3.1) for the second list. HA users had a 4-dB better SRT compared with CI users. The larger the child's hearing loss, the worse the SRT is. However, 15% of the children who completed a first list of 24 trials were unable to complete a second list. Mean adaptive staircase trajectories across trials suggested that learning occurred throughout the first list, and that loss of sustained attention contributed to response variability during the second list. CONCLUSION: The DIN test can be used to assess speech perception in noise abilities for children with different degrees of hearing loss and using HAs or CIs. The children with hearing loss required a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than did normal-hearing children and the required SNR is larger as the hearing loss increases. However, the current measurement procedure should be optimized for use in standard pediatric audiological care, as 15% of the children were unable to conduct a second list after the first list to reach a more stable SNR.

Repeated Audiometry After Bacterial Meningitis: Consequences for Future Management.

OBJECTIVE: Sensorineural hearing loss is a common sequela of bacterial meningitis. The objective of this study is to delineate the incidence and course of hearing loss after bacterial meningitis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Data of 655 patients who suffered from bacterial meningitis between 1985 and 2015 were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Availability of audiometric data, incidence of hearing loss, and onset and course of hearing loss. RESULTS: In this cohort the incidence of hearing loss (>25 dB) was 28% (95% confidence interval 23-34%). The incidence of profound hearing loss (>80 dB) was 13% (95% confidence interval 10-18%). Normal hearing at the first assessment after treatment for meningitis remained stable over time in all these patients. In 19 of the 28 patients with diagnosed hearing loss, the hearing level remained stable over time. Hearing improved in six patients and deteriorated in two patients. One patient showed a fluctuating unilateral hearing loss. CONCLUSION: Audiological tests in patients with bacterial meningitis, especially children, should be started as soon as possible after the acute phase is over. As we found no deterioration of initial normal hearing after bacterial meningitis, repeated audiometry seems indicated only for those with diagnosed hearing loss at first assessment.

Systematic Review: Incidence and Course of Hearing Loss Caused by Bacterial Meningitis: In Search of an Optimal Timed Audiological Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to clarify the incidence and course of hearing loss after bacterial meningitis to optimize the audiological follow-up. DATA SOURCES: The databases Embase, Medline (OvidSP), Web-of-science, Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar were used. Only articles written in English were included. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published from 1985 until March 2015 describing the incidence, risk factors, or course of hearing loss after meningitis were used. DATA EXTRACTION: The quality of the studies was assessed on three aspects: quality of audiometry, number of patients, and methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: For each publication, data were entered in spreadsheet software for analysis. The data were analyzed and interpreted using best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of the included studies was poor. A major drawback was the quality of the (description of) audiometry, severity, and timing of hearing loss.A systematic review of the literature showed an incidence of hearing loss (>25 ±â€Š5  dB) of 14% and an incidence of 5% for profound hearing loss (>90  dB). Patients with initial normal hearing after meningitis showed stable normal hearing over time. However, initial hearing loss related to meningitis can improve or deteriorate over time.We therefore recommend early audiological testing of all patients who suffered bacterial meningitis. However, long-term audiological follow-up is only needed for patients with early onset hearing loss and not for patients with normal hearing at the first hearing test.