Otoacoustic emissions versus audiometry in monitoring hearing loss after long-term noise exposure - a systematic review.

Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to compare otoacoustic emissions (OAE) with audiometry in their effectiveness to monitor effects of long-term noise exposure on hearing. Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed up to March 2016 to identify longitudinal studies on effects of noise exposure on hearing as determined by both audiometry and OAE. Results This review comprised 13 articles, with 30-350 subjects in the longitudinal analysis. A meta-analysis could not be performed because the studies were very heterogeneous in terms of measurement paradigms, follow-up time, age of included subjects, inclusion of data points, outcome parameters and method of analysis. Overall there seemed to be small changes in both audiometry and OAE over time. Individual shifts were detected by both methods but a congruent pattern could not be observed. Some studies found that initial abnormal or low-level emissions might predict future hearing loss but at the cost of low specificity due to a high number of false positives. Other studies could not find such predictive value. Conclusions The reported heterogeneity in the studies calls for more uniformity in including, reporting and analyzing longitudinal data for audiometry and OAE. For the overall results, both methods showed small changes from baseline towards a deterioration in hearing. OAE could not reliably detect threshold shifts at individual level. With respect to the predictive value of OAE, the evidence was not conclusive and studies were not in agreement. The reported predictors had low specificity.

Comparison of shoulder load during power-assisted and purely hand-rim wheelchair propulsion.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive forces and moments are among the work requirements of hand-rim wheelchair propulsion that are related to shoulder injuries. No previous research has been published about the influence of power-assisted wheelchair propulsion on these work requirements. The purpose of our study was therefore to determine the influence of power-assisted propulsion on shoulder biomechanics and muscle activation patterns. We also explored the theoretical framework for the effectiveness of power-assisted propulsion in preventing shoulder injuries by decreasing the work requirements of hand-rim wheelchair propulsion. METHODS: Nine non-wheelchair users propelled a hand-rim wheelchair on a treadmill at 0.9 m/s. Shoulder biomechanics, and muscle activation patterns, were compared between propulsion with and without power-assist. FINDINGS: Propulsion frequency did not differ significantly between the two conditions (Wilcoxon Signed Rank test/significance level/effect size:4/.314/-.34). During power-assisted propulsion we found significantly decreased maximum shoulder flexion and internal rotation angles (1/.015/-.81 and 0/.008/-.89) and decreased peak force on the rim (0/.008/-.89). This resulted in decreased shoulder flexion, adduction and internal rotation moments (2/.021/-.77; 0/.008/-.89 and 1/.011/-.85) and decreased forces at the shoulder in the posterior, superior and lateral directions (2/.021/-.77; 2/.008/-.89 and 2/.024/-.75). Muscle activation in the pectoralis major, posterior deltoid and triceps brachii was also decreased (2/.038/-.69; 1/.015/-.81 and 1/.021/-.77). INTERPRETATION: Power-assist influenced the work requirements of hand-rim wheelchair propulsion by healthy subjects. It was primarily the kinetics at rim and shoulder which were influenced by power-assisted propulsion. Additional research with actual hand-rim wheelchair users is required before extrapolation to routine clinical practice.