This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (14)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Aging/ Geriatrics  • Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery  • Audiology  • Hearing Loss/ Deafness  • Diagnosis  • The Rational Clinical Examination  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Akshay Bagai, MD; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD; Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2006;295:416-428.

Context  Hearing impairment is prevalent among the elderly population but commonly underdiagnosed.

Objective  To review the accuracy and precision of bedside clinical maneuvers for diagnosing hearing impairment.

Data Sources  MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1966 to April 2005) were searched for English-language articles related to screening for hearing impairment.

Study Selection  Original studies on the accuracy or precision of screening questions and tests were included. Articles that used unaccepted reference standards or contained insufficient data were excluded. Medical Subject Headings or keywords used in the search included hearing loss, hearing handicap, hearing tests, tuning fork, deafness, physical examination, sensitivity, specificity, audiometry, tuning fork tests, Rinne, Weber, audioscope, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly–Screening version, whispered voice test, sensorineural, and conductive.

Data Extraction  One author screened all potential articles and 2 authors independently abstracted data. Differences were resolved by consensus. Each included study (n = 24) was assigned a methodological grade.

Data Synthesis  A yes response when asking individuals whether they have hearing impairment has a summary likelihood ratio (LR) of 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.6); a no response has an LR of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.19). A score of 8 or greater on the screening version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE-S) has an LR of 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-4.8); a score less than 8 has an LR of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51). An abnormal Weber tuning fork test response has an LR of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0-2.3); a normal response has an LR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.0). An abnormal Rinne tuning fork test response has LRs ranging from 2.7 to 62; a normal response has LRs from 0.01 to 0.85. Inability to perceive a whispered voice has an LR of 6.1 (95% CI, 4.5-8.4); normal perception has an LR of 0.03 (95% CI, 0-0.24). Not passing the audioscope test has an LR of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4-4.1); passing has an LR of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.17).

Conclusions  Elderly individuals who acknowledge they have hearing impairment require audiometry, while those who reply no should be screened with the whispered-voice test. Individuals who perceive the whispered voice require no further testing, while those unable to perceive the voice require audiometry. The Weber and Rinne tests should not be used for general screening.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dr Detsky) and Medicine (Drs Bagai, Thavendiranathan, and Detsky), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; and Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Toronto (Dr Detsky).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Clinical Assessment of Hearing Impairment
Stephen M. Kieran and John E. Fenton
JAMA. 2007;297(7):695.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Assessment of Hearing Impairment
David L. Gaspar
JAMA. 2007;297(7):695.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Assessment of Hearing Impairment—Reply
Akshay Bagai, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, and Allan S. Detsky
JAMA. 2007;297(7):695-696.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Audiometry
Erin Brender, Alison E. Burke, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2006;295(4):460.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Calibrated finger rub auditory screening test (CALFRAST)
Torres-Russotto et al.
Neurology 2009;72:1595-1600.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Differences by Demographic Characteristics Among US Adults: Data From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004
Agrawal et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1522-1530.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Diabetes and Hearing Impairment in the United States: Audiometric Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 to 2004
Bainbridge et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;149:1-10.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Acoustic neuromas following childhood radiation treatment for benign conditions of the head and neck
Schneider et al.
Neuro Oncol 2008;10:73-78.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Encouraging medical students to do research and write papers
Detsky and Detsky
CMAJ 2007;176:1719-1721.
FULL TEXT  

How accurate are bedside hearing tests?
Boatman et al.
Neurology 2007;68:1311-1314.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Hearing and aging
Bance
CMAJ 2007;176:925-927.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Assessment of Hearing Impairment
Kieran and Fenton
JAMA 2007;297:695-695.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Assessment of Hearing Impairment
Gaspar
JAMA 2007;297:695-695.
FULL TEXT  

Review: self report of hearing loss and the whispered voice test are useful for screening for hearing impairment
Martin
Evid. Based Nurs. 2006;9:120-120.
FULL TEXT  

Review: self report of hearing loss and the whispered voice test are useful for screening for hearing impairment
Glasziou
Evid. Based Med. 2006;11:116-116.
FULL TEXT