Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14997995

[Tinnitus].

M Kompis·N T Neuner·W Hemmeler·R Häusler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Tinnitus is an auditory perception without adequate external acoustic sources. The incidence of tinnitus in the general population is high, and can lead to total decompensation in some of the affected patients. Tinnitus is a symptom of an unspecific lesion of the ear or the central auditory system. In many cases, the cause of tinnitus can be inferred from the medical history and from the results of specific medical examines. Nevertheless, in many cases there is still no causal therapy available. As a result, for most patients approaches such as proper counselling, the fitting of hearing aids or tinnitus retraining therapy are adopted.

Explore related subjects

AudiometryChronic DiseaseCounselingHearing AidsHumansIncidenceOtoacoustic Emissions, SpontaneousTime FactorsTinnitusComparative StudyEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Kompis, N T Neuner, W Hemmeler, R Häusler. 2004. [Tinnitus].. https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930.61.1.15

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

A novel autosomal recessive nonsyndromic hearing impairment locus (DFNB42) maps to chromosome 3q13.31-q22.3.

A consanguineous family with autosomal recessive nonsyndromic hearing impairment (NSHI) was ascertained in Pakistan and displayed significant evidence of linkage to 3q13.31-q22.3. The novel locus (DFNB42) segregating in this kindred, maps to a 21.6 cM region according to a genetic map constructed using data from both the deCode and Marshfield genetic maps. This region of homozygosity is flanked by markers D3S1278 and D3S2453. A maximum multipoint LOD score of 3.72 was obtained at marker D3S4523. DFNB42 represents the third autosomal recessive NSHI locus to map to chromosome 3.

Audiometry↗
PubMed2005

[Combined exposure to noise and vibration and its effects on workers' hearing].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the exposure of bus drivers to noise and whole-body vibration (WBV) and to examine the possibility of an association between these risk factors for noise-induced hearing loss. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out among 141 bus drivers who underwent an audiometry test. This group was classified and internally stratified in subgroups of "exposed" and "controls" according to cumulative working time as bus drivers. Their exposure to noise and vibration was assessed. The association between noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and the set of explanatory variables was analyzed through logistic regression. RESULTS: The average (+/- standard deviation) weekly noise exposure of front-engine bus drivers was 83.6 +/- 1.9 dB(A), while rear-engine bus drivers were exposed to 77.0 +/- 1.1 dB(A). The weighted average of vibration acceleration was 0.85/m(2). In the best adjusted model, the multivariable analysis showed that age (>44; OR=2.54; 95% CI=1.15-5.62), diabetes (OR=5.46; 95% CI=0.95-31.4), and the level of noise emission [>86.8 dB(A); OR=2.76; 95% CI=1.24-6.15] were risk factors for NIHL. In another model studied, WBV exposure was significant in determining NIHL. CONCLUSIONS: Bus drivers were exposed to significant WBV levels. The noise exposure was more pronounced in front engine than in rear-engine vehicles. No association between WBV exposure and NIHL was observed and no interaction was found between WBV and noise exposure. Further studies are required as other model indicated an association between WBV and NIHL.

Audiometry↗
PubMed2005

The Parkland Memorial Hospital experience in ensuring compliance with Universal Newborn Hearing Screening follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Reduce false-positive results and loss to follow-up through systematic modifications in Universal Newborn Hearing Screening at a large public hospital. STUDY DESIGN: During a pilot program, neonates who failed technician-performed automated auditory brain stem response were scheduled for diagnostic evaluation. In year 1, audiologists rescreened neonates who failed, and those who did not pass were screened as outpatients. For years 2 through 4, neonates who failed were rescreened by technicians before inpatient audiology rescreening. RESULTS: For the pilot, 3759 neonates were screened; 1% (n = 43) failed and 44% (n = 19) were lost to follow-up. In year 1, 15,297 neonates were screened and 2% (n = 365) failed; audiology rescreening reduced this to <1% (n = 129). Outpatient rescreening yielded 0.5% (n = 70) who failed; 17% (n = 12) were lost to follow-up. In year 2, 16,384 neonates were screened, 3% (n = 456) failed, and 1% (n = 167) failed after technician rescreen; audiology rescreening reduced inpatient fails to 0.6% (n = 108), and 0.4% (n = 61) failed outpatient rescreening; 11% (n = 7) were lost to follow-up. Results for years 3 and 4 were similar to year 2, with further reduction in loss to follow-up to 11% (n = 6) and 1.7% (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Successful Universal Newborn Hearing Screening with reduced false-positive results and loss to follow-up can be accomplished with a planned schedule of inpatient rescreens and outpatient rescreening at the birthing facility.

Audiometry↗