Clinical accuracy of tuning fork tests

Approach to Sudden Hearing Loss Among Primary Care Physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

A medical emergency known as sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) affects the ears suddenly, has a considerable probability of negative cognitive and functional outcomes, and can influence the patient's quality of life. Primary care physicians play a crucial role in diagnosing SSNHL and initiating prompt and efficient management since they are the ones who would likely encounter it initially. This study aims to evaluate the present knowledge, diagnostic, and management perspective of SSNHL among primary care physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A self-generated questionnaire with 17 questions was developed, and a link to the online survey was delivered to primary care physicians (PHPs) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, concerning the management of SSNHL.

RESULTS

The knowledge level regarding SSNHL was evaluated, in which 21 (25%) of the participants had a low knowledge level, 34 (40.5%) had moderate knowledge, and 29 (34.5%) had a high knowledge level. Among 84 participants, 20 (23.8%) were confident in their ability to administer and understand the findings of tuning fork tests (TFT) to differentiate between sensorineural hearing loss and conductive hearing loss, whereas 64 (76.2%) were unsure about it. In addition, to distinguish between sensorineural hearing loss and conductive hearing loss, 62 (73.8%) participants were confident, and 22 (26.2%) participants were skeptical about their ability to interpret a formal audiogram.

CONCLUSION

Considering SSNHL as a medical emergency, in our survey, many family doctors would make proper referral and treatment decisions. However, TFTs were underutilized for guiding management decisions compared to other ways to distinguish between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss.

Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of audiometric Weber test and tuning fork Weber test in patients with conductive hearing loss

OBJECTIVES

Weber test is typically conducted using tuning forks, but an audiometer can also be used for a similar purpose. Compared to the tuning fork Weber (TFW) test, performing the audiometric Weber (AW) test offers many advantages. Nevertheless, AW and TFW tests' performance compared to pure-tone audiometry (PTA) has yet to be studied. The present study aimed to determine the accuracy and agreement between the AW and TFW tests compared to PTA.

METHODS

In this observational cross-sectional study, 74 participants (aged 12-67 years) with unilateral conductive hearing loss (CHL) or bilateral asymmetrical CHL were enrolled. The TFW test was performed according to the established protocol at 256 and 512 Hz. For the AW test, the bone vibrator was placed in the middle of the forehead, where 250 and 500 Hz frequencies were tested. TF and AW test results were then compared with the expected lateralization from the respective PTA results.

RESULTS

At 256 Hz (or 250 Hz), the overall accuracy values of TFW and AW tests were 81.1% and 86.5%, respectively. At 512 Hz (or 500 Hz), the overall accuracy results of TFW and AW tests were 85.1% and 82.4%, respectively. In addition, the kappa statistics revealed substantial agreements between the two tests and PTA (k = .63-.72).

CONCLUSION

Both AW and TFW tests are reasonably accurate in assessing patients with CHL. It is recommended for audiologists to perform the simple AW test to verify incomplete or questionable audiograms that are commonly encountered in clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3b.

Does Sinusitis Affect Lateralization of a Tuning Fork Weber Test?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the effect of sinusitis on Weber test lateralization which normally lateralizes toward the ear of a conductive hearing loss and away from the ear of a sensorineural hearing loss; to investigate whether the presence of an extra-aural condition might affect Weber test results.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with maxillary and/or frontal sinusitis were included (study group), as well as patients with normal sinus structure and function (control group) were enrolled between February and September 2019. Presence or absence of paranasal disease and middle ear aeration was confirmed by computerized tomography. Subjects with otologic condition were excluded. The physical examinations, tympanograms, and audiograms were unremarkable. The Weber test consisted of 512, 1024, and 2048 Hz tuning forks that were applied on the central incisors and frontal midline, and lateralization patterns were compared with the extent of paranasal pathology.

RESULTS

There were 44 participants (M:F=26:18), age 19 to 63 years (average 51). The cohort included 39 patients with sinusitis, affecting the frontal and/or maxillary sinus(es), as well as 5 controls without evidence of paranasal disease. There was a match between the extent of paranasal disease and the results of all 3 Weber test frequencies in 35 patients (80%). Omission of the 2048 and 1024 Hz tuning forks from the analysis yielded a match in 40 (91%) and 43 (98%) patients, respectively. No Weber test lateralized to the nondiseased sinus in any subject. Weber test lateralization was observed in 11% of patients, after the sinonasal pathology was successfully addressed.

CONCLUSION

Weber test lateralization in the absence of aural pathology may be explained by asymmetry related to paranasal disease and may alert to its presence.

Weber test accuracy in sudden sensorineural hearing loss: which frequency is best?

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines encourage the use of Webet test (WT) as a part of the physical examination of a newly suspected sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) patient. However, the most sensitive tuning-fork frequency has never been identified.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the most sensitive frequency for initial WT of patients with suspected SSNHL.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with confirmed SSNHL, who underwent formal audiometry in which the WT was carried out with different frequencies were analyzed.

RESULTS

319 medical records were identified. The most sensitive WT frequency was 500 Hz, with a sensitivity of 94.49% (223/236. confidence interval 90.76-97.03). There was a non-significant difference between 1000 Hz EBO and 500 Hz EBO (p = .1655), a tendency towards a significant difference between 1000 Hz EBO and 2000 Hz EBO (p = .0578), and a significantly better sensitivity than the 4000 Hz EBO (p = .0163).

CONCLUSION

The most sensitive WT frequency for SSNHL diagnosis is 500 Hz. However, the sensitivity of this frequency is 94.49%.

SIGNIFICANCE

512 or 1024 Hz should be used to better identified SSNHL. Even WT lateralization to the affected ear, does not preclude the diagnosis of SSNHL. Formal audiometry should be used in any case of medical history suspected for sudden hearing loss with normal otoscopy.

Rinne Test Results: How Badly Can We Be Mistaken?

Objective

To establish the extent to which sound amplitudes delivered by a vibrating tuning fork change around its long axis and to evaluate whether such differences in amplitude might change the results of the Rinne test.

Study Design

Experimental measurements.

Setting

Laboratory setting.

Methods

Setup I: a vibrating tuning fork was handheld and manually rotated around its long axis next to a sound recording device (the simulated ear) in order to record sound amplitude data at a full range of angles relative to the device; files were split into segments in which sound amplitude changed: A (from a maximum to a minimum) and B (from a minimum to a maximum). Setup II: a vibrating tuning fork was machine-rotated, and the angle of rotation, along with the sound amplitude, was automatically recorded through a single full rotation.

Results

The angles of 0° and 180° (which equate to the established best practice in Rinne testing) were associated with the highest sound amplitudes. All other angles decreased sound amplitude. The greatest decrease in amplitude was recorded at 51° and 130°. This difference ranged from 9.8 to 34.7 dB, depending on the initial amplitude.

Conclusion

The outcome of a Rinne test can be affected if attention is not paid to the precise angle at which the tuning fork is held relative to the ear. The potential of this effect will be greater when high background noise or patient hearing loss requires that the tuning fork be vigorously excited to obtain high sound amplitudes.

Management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss among primary care physicians in Canada: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) is a medical emergency requiring immediate attention as delayed treatment can lead to permanent and devastating consequences. Primary care physicians are likely the first to be presented with SSNHL and therefore have the crucial role of recognizing it and initiating timely and appropriate management. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the current knowledge and practice trends pertaining to the diagnosis and management of SSNHL among family physicians in Canada.

METHODS

An 18-question survey targeting Canadian family physicians was marketed through two, physician-only discussion groups on the social media platform Facebook. Responses were collected between August 1st and December 22nd 2019 then aggregated and quantified.

RESULTS

52 family physicians submitted responses. 94.2% (n = 49) reported that in their practice, unilateral SSNHL warrants urgent referral to otolaryngology and 84.6% (n = 44) reported that unilateral sudden-onset hearing loss warrants urgent referral for audiological testing. 73.1% of participants (n = 38) reported that they would attempt to differentiate between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss if presented with unilateral, acute or sudden-onset hearing loss. 61.5% (n = 32) would rely on tuning fork tests to inform management decisions, as compared to 94.2% (n = 49) relying on case history and 88.5% (n = 46) on otoscopy. 76.9% (n = 40) would prescribe corticosteroids if presented with confirmed, unilateral SSNHL.

CONCLUSION

The majority of family physicians in the study would make appropriate referral and treatment decisions in the management of SSNHL, understanding it is a medical emergency. Tuning fork tests are under-utilized for informing management decisions compared to other means of differentiating conductive and sensorineural hearing loss. Further research is needed to understand why some family physicians do not prescribe corticosteroids for treatment of SSNHL, which may then identify any gaps in knowledge or inform improvements in clinical protocol.

The effective screening tools for detecting hearing loss in elderly population: HHIE-ST Versus TSQ

Background

Globally increasing number of elders is concerned. Hearing loss process in older adults cannot be avoided. An effective screening tool for hearing loss is essential for proper diagnosis and rehabilitation, which can improve QOL in older adults.

Methods

This prospective-diagnostic test study evaluates the diagnostic value of Thai version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Screening (HHIE-ST) and the Thai Single Question (TSQ) surveys in screening hearing disability in 1109 Thai participants aged 60 years and older in communities in four provinces in Thailand. The HHIE-ST consisted of 10 selected questions from the validated HHIE-Thai version. A TSQ survey was developed to have the same meaning as an English Single Question survey. The participants answered both questionnaires, and a standard audiometry test assessed with air conduction from 250 to 8000 Hz was included as a gold standard.

Results

The prevalence of hearing disability was 38.34%. The HHIE-ST achieved a sensitivity of 88.96% (95% CI 85.77–91.64) and specificity of 52.19% (95% CI 48.24–56.13) for diagnosis hearing disability in Thai older adults, whereas the TSQ yielded a sensitivity of 88.73% and a specificity of 55.93%. A combined test including the HHIE-ST and TSQ achieved better performance with sensitivity of 85.29% and specificity of 60.13%.

Conclusions

Either the HHIE-ST or the TSQ is a sensitive and useful tool for screening hearing disability in Thai older adults. Using the HHIE-ST together with the TSQ resulted in a better screening tool for detecting moderate hearing loss older adults who will benefit and recommended for hearing rehabilitation.

Trial registration

The study is registered with the following number in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20151015003. Date of registration October 14, 2015.

A Smartphone-Based Approach to Screening for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Cross-Sectional Validity Study

Background

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an otologic emergency that warrants urgent management. Pure-tone audiometry remains the gold standard for definitively diagnosing SSNHL. However, in clinical settings such as primary care practices and urgent care facilities, conventional pure-tone audiometry is often unavailable.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the correlation between hearing outcomes measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry and those measured by the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app and determine the diagnostic validity of the hearing scale differences between the two ears as obtained by the Ear Scale app for SSNHL.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included a cohort of 88 participants with possible SSNHL who were referred to an otolaryngology clinic or emergency department at a tertiary medical center in Taipei, Taiwan, between January 2018 and June 2019. All participants underwent hearing assessments with conventional pure-tone audiometry and the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app consecutively. The gold standard for diagnosing SSNHL was defined as the pure-tone average (PTA) difference between the two ears being ≥30 dB HL. The hearing results measured by the Ear Scale app were presented as 20 stratified hearing scales. The hearing scale difference between the two ears was estimated to detect SSNHL.

Results

The study sample comprised 88 adults with a mean age of 46 years, and 50% (44/88) were females. PTA measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry was strongly correlated with the hearing scale assessed by the Ear Scale app, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .88 (95% CI .82-.92). The sensitivity of the 5–hearing scale difference (25 dB HL difference) between the impaired ear and the contralateral ear in diagnosing SSNHL was 95.5% (95% CI 87.5%-99.1%), with a specificity of 66.7% (95% CI 43.0%-85.4%).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app can be useful in the evaluation of SSNHL in clinical settings where conventional pure-tone audiometry is not available.

Hearing Vital Signs: Mobile Audiometry in the Emergency Department for Evaluation of Sudden Hearing Loss

Emergency departments (EDs) are a common location for patients to present with sudden hearing loss (SHL). Unfortunately, high-quality, rapid quantitative measurement of hearing loss is challenging. Herein, we aim to evaluate the accuracy of tablet-based audiometry in patients complaining of SHL. Prospective tablet-based testing was completed in the ED in patients complaining of SHL. Air conduction thresholds (ACTs) obtained via tablet-based audiometry were compared to same-day measurements with a clinical-grade audiometer. Hearing loss (HL) was defined as >20 dB ACT for any frequency. In participant-level analysis, 30+ dB HL in 3 consecutive frequencies was used to define SHL. In the ED, mobile audiogram ACTs were within 5 dB (77%) and 10 dB (89.6%) of those determined by conventional audiometry. The sensitivity and specificity for mobile audiometry to detect 3 or more consecutive thresholds with 30+ dB HL were 100% and 62.5%, respectively. Findings have implications for increasing access to high-quality audiometry.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update)

OBJECTIVE

Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently but not universally accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged ≥18 years and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients.

METHODS

Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition" (Rosenfeld et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148[1]:S1-S55), the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key Action Statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated.

RESULTS

The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: (KAS 1) Clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss. (KAS 7) Clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy. (KAS 13) Clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiologic rehabilitation and other supportive measures. These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendations against the following: (KAS 3) Clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 5) Clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 11) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: (KAS 2) Clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings. (KAS 4) In patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 6) Clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response. (KAS 10) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms. (KAS 12) Clinicians should obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment. These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry and method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 8) Clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset. (KAS 9a) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 9b) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE

Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that >90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1-When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2-The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3-The word "routine" is added to clarify that this statement addresses nontargeted head computerized tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans, such as temporal bone computerized tomography scan, to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4-The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5-New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6-Audiometric follow-up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, and, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7-The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8-The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9-Changed to KAS 9A and 9B. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9A) or salvage therapy (9B). The timing of initial therapy is within 2 weeks of onset, and that of salvage therapy is within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 10-Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11-Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12-Follow-up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13-This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in same.

A Smartphone-Based Weber Test May Discriminate between a Conductive and a Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Objective: The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of a smartphone-based Weber test (SPWT) with the traditional tuning fork Weber test (TFWT) in identifying and differentiating between sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). Study Design: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study. Methods: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone’s vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT. Results: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively. Conclusion: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.

Sudden deafness and tuning fork tests: towards optimal utilisation

The tuning fork tests have been under attack since their first use in clinical examination. However, the tuning fork is small and fits into every white coat, and tuning fork tests for hearing are easy, accurate and inexpensive. They should be used in patients with an acute unilateral hearing loss if an electric audiometer is not available. After more than 100 years, the tuning fork is not obsolete; tuning fork tests are very useful if used correctly and for the appropriate indication.

Update on consensus on diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

INTRODUCTION

Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a sudden, unexplained unilateral hearing loss.

OBJECTIVES

To update the Spanish Consensus on the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of ISSNHL.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to March 2018, on MESH terms «(acute or sudden) hearing loss or deafness», a third update was performed, including 1508 relevant papers.

RESULTS

Regarding diagnosis, 11ISSNHL is clinically suspected, the following diagnostic tests are mandatory: otoscopy, acumetry, tonal audiometry, speech audiometry, and tympanometry, to discount conductive causes. After clinical diagnosis has been established, and before treatment is started, a full analysis should be performed. An MRI should then be requested, ideally performed during the first 15 days after diagnosis, to discount specific causes and to help to understand the physiopathological mechanisms in each case. Although treatment is very controversial, due to its effect on quality of life after ISSNHL and the few rare adverse effects associated with short-term steroid treatment, this consensus recommends that all patients should be treated with steroids, orally and/or intratympanically, depending on each patient. In the event of failure of systemic steroids, intratympanic rescue is also recommended. Follow-up should be at day 7, and after 12 months.

CONCLUSION

By consensus, results after treatment should be reported as absolute decibels recovered in pure tonal audiometry and as improvement in speech audiometry.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Tuning Fork Tests for Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

Objective

(1) To determine the diagnostic accuracy of tuning fork tests (TFTs; Weber and Rinne) for assessment of hearing loss as compared with standard audiometry. (2) To identify the audiometric threshold at which TFTs transition from normal to abnormal, thus indicating the presence of hearing loss.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus and manual bibliographic searches.

Review Methods

A systematic review of studies reporting TFT accuracy was performed according to a standardized protocol. Two independent evaluators corroborated the extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

Results

Seventeen studies with 3158 participants, including adults and children, met inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of the Rinne test for detecting conductive hearing loss ranged from 43% to 91% and 50% to 100%, respectively, for a 256-Hz fork and from 16% to 87% and 55% to 100% for a 512-Hz fork. The audiometric thresholds at which tests transition from normal to abnormal ranged from 13 to 40 dB of conductive hearing loss for the Rinne test and from 2.5 to 4 dB of asymmetry for the Weber test. Significant heterogeneity in TFT methods and audiometric thresholds to define hearing loss precluded meta-analysis. There is high risk of bias in patient selection for a majority of the studies.

Conclusion

Variability exists in the reported test accuracy measurements of TFTs for clinical screening, surgical candidacy assessments, and estimation of hearing loss severity. Clinicians should remain mindful of these differences and optimize these techniques in specific clinical applications to improve TFT accuracy.

Clinical Practice Guideline

Objective. Sudden hearing loss (SHL) is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a physician. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with SHL. The guideline primarily focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in adult patients (aged 18 and older). Prompt recognition and management of SSNHL may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life (QOL). Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 20 per 100,000 population, with about 4000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with SHL.

Purpose. The purpose of this guideline is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with SHL, with particular emphasis on managing SSNHL. The panel recognized that patients enter the health care system with SHL as a nonspecific, primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of the guideline deal with efficiently distinguishing SSNHL from other causes of SHL at the time of presentation. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, the guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients.

Results. The panel made strong recommendations that clinicians should (1) distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss in a patient presenting with SHL; (2) educate patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy; and (3) counsel patients with incomplete recovery of hearing about the possible benefits of amplification and hearing-assistive technology and other supportive measures. The panel made recommendations that clinicians should (1) assess patients with presumptive SSNHL for bilateral SHL, recurrent episodes of SHL, or focal neurologic findings; (2) diagnose presumptive ISSNHL if audiometry confirms a 30-dB hearing loss at 3 consecutive frequencies and an underlying condition cannot be identified by history and physical examination; (3) evaluate patients with ISSNHL for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging, auditory brainstem response, or audiometric follow-up; (4) offer intratympanic steroid perfusion when patients have incomplete recovery from ISSNHL after failure of initial management; and (5) obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation within 6 months of diagnosis for patients with ISSNHL. The panel offered as options that clinicians may offer (1) corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with ISSNHL and (2) hyperbaric oxygen therapy within 3 months of diagnosis of ISSNHL. The panel made a recommendation against clinicians routinely prescribing antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, vasoactive substances, or antioxidants to patients with ISSNHL. The panel made strong recommendations against clinicians (1) ordering computerized tomography of the head/brain in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive SSNHL and (2) obtaining routine laboratory tests in patients with ISSNHL.

C1-tuning fork tests in school-aged children

The Rinne and the Weber tests were carried out using a 256-Hz tuning fork on 687 6- to 15-year-old school children, the majority of whom were normally hearing subjects. The Rinne test was positive in 97% of ears with normal hearing or sensorineural hearing loss and negative in 72% of ears with conductive hearing loss. The Rinne test changed from positive to negative at 13 dB when performed using the normal loudness comparison method. In midline Weber results, the mean value of the air conduction difference at 0.25 kHz between the right and left ear was 1.4 dB. The lateralization in the Weber test occurred at a difference of 2.5 dB between the right and left ear. The Weber test was in midline in 96-98% of ears with bilateral normal hearing or sensorineural hearing loss. It lateralized to the poorer ear in 63% of ears with unilateral conductive hearing loss. The values of the Rinne and Weber tests were not good in the diagnosis of mild conductive hearing loss when the air-bone gap was 5-35 dB.