Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int J Audiol ; : 1-9, 2023 May 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37232570

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe changes in audiometric thresholds over time in children whose hearing loss demonstrated early mild progression. DESIGN: This was a retrospective follow-up study to examine long-term audiologic results in children with progressive loss. STUDY SAMPLE: We examined audiologic data for 69 children, (diagnosed from 2003 to 2013), who had been previously categorised as having "minimal" progressive hearing loss. RESULTS: Children had a median of 10.0 (7.5, 12.1) years of follow-up and a median age of 12.5 (IQR: 11.0, 14.5) years; 92.8%; 64 of 69) of children continued to show progressive hearing loss (defined as a decrease of ≥10 dB at two or more adjacent frequencies between 0.5 and 4 kHz or a decrease in 15 dB at one frequency) in at least one ear since diagnosis. Further examination showed that 82.8% of ears (106 of 128) had deterioration in hearing. Of the 64 children, 29.7% (19/64) showed further deterioration since the first analysis. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of children identified as having minimal progressive hearing loss continued to show deterioration in hearing. Ongoing audiological monitoring of children with hearing loss is indicated to ensure timely intervention and to better counsel families.

2.
Alzheimers Dement ; 19(7): 3235-3243, 2023 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36934438

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PSYCInfo, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (1995-2021) for studies comparing the MoCA with validated diagnostic criteria to identify MCI in general practice. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently, in duplicate. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for MoCA cutoffs were estimated using bivariate meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen studies [2158 participants, 948(44%) with MCI] were included; 10 used Petersen criteria as the reference standard. Risk of bias of studies were high or unclear for all domains except reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity were 73.5%(95% confidence interval: 56.7-85.5) and 91.3%(84.6-95.3) at cutoff <23; 79.5%(67.1-88.0) and 83.7%(75.4-89.6) at cutoff <24; and 83.8%(75.6-89.6) and 70.8(62.1-78.3) at cutoff <25. DISCUSSION: MoCA cutoffs <23 to <25 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI. The risk of bias of included studies limits confidence in these findings.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Cognitiva , Humanos , Disfunción Cognitiva/diagnóstico , Disfunción Cognitiva/psicología , Pruebas de Estado Mental y Demencia , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Examen Neurológico , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA