Validation of a cognitive screening tool for hearing impaired older adults

Dementia usually starts in individuals aged over 65, and one-third of people in this age group have disabling hearing impairment. Moreover, older adults with hearing impairment are nearly 2 times more likely to develop dementia compared with their normal-hearing peers. This makes early and accurate screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among this population even more important. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) is a commonly used cognitive screening tool to early identify the individuals at risk of MCI. However, the tool relies on verbal administration of the instructions and target words/sentences which as shown in a previous meta-analysis could be a disadvantage for the hearing-impaired population, making the screening inaccurate. The MoCA for hearing-aid users (MoCA-HA) was developed and validated. The development phase was done with feedback from professionals and the older adult hearing-aid users, the tool’s final target population. The appropriate cut-point score of below 26 out of 30 is proposed for an onward cognitive assessment referral which yields a similarly high sensitivity to the traditional MoCA. It had an excellent discrimination property and correlated well with other existing cognitive measures. The MoCA-HA is suitable to be used in hearing aid centres for early screening for potential mild cognitive impairment. Despite measuring with the visually presented tool such as MoCA-HA, the information encoding ability was slightly reduced in the hearing-impaired cohort. The information retrieval ability was well preserved among the hearing-impaired population but was reduced when they had additional mild cognitive impairment. This also affected their performance and reliability of the self-reported hearing difficulty questionnaires. The visuospatial ability of the hearing-impaired population was better than the norms. With additional MCI, the ability was decreased but still comparable to the norms. These considerations could formulate better and holistic care plans for the hearing-impaired population with potential cognitive impairment

The Impact of Hearing Loss and Hearing Aid Usage on the Visuospatial Abilities of Older Adults in a Cohort of Combined Hearing and Cognitive Impairment

Introduction: It has been proposed that hearing loss may result in improved visuospatial abilities. The evidence for this assertion is inconsistent, and limited to studies in congenitally deaf children, despite older adults with age-related hearing loss constituting the vast majority of the hearing impaired population. We assessed visuospatial (visuoconstruction and visuospatial memory) ability in older adult hearing aid users with and without clinically significant cognitive impairment. The primary aim of the study was to determine the effect of hearing loss on visuospatial abilities. Method: Seventy-five adult hearing aid users (HA) aged over 65 were recruited, out of whom 30 had normal cognition (NC-HA), 30 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI-HA), and 15 had dementia (D-HA). The Rey Osterrieth Complex figure test (ROCFT) copy, 3 min recall and 30 min recall tests were performed to evaluate the visuoconstructional and visuospatial memory abilities of the participants. Results: There were significant differences between the ROCFT copy, 3 min recall, and 30 min recall among the three cohorts (p < 0.005). Compared with previously published normative data, the NC-HA performed significantly better in the ROCFT copy (p < 0.001), immediate recall (p < 0.001), and delay recall (p = 0.001), while the MCI-HA performed similarly to the expected norms derived from population (p = 0.426, p = 0.611, p = 0.697, respectively), and the D-HA performed below this norm. Conclusion: Though visuospatial abilities tend to decline when the global cognitive functioning declines, we found suggestive evidence for positive effects of age-related hearing loss on visuospatial cognitive ability. Participants with mild cognitive impairment and hearing loss, who would have been expected to perform worse than normative data, were in fact performing as well as cognitively healthy subjects without hearing loss. Visuospatial ability could be targeted when providing rehabilitation for the older adults with hearing loss

A Hearing Screening Protocol for Stroke Patients: An Exploratory Study.

Background: Auditory impairment post stroke is common and may be due to both peripheral hearing loss and or central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). When auditory impairment remains untreated, it may impact on patient communication and rehabilitation after stroke. Offering a comprehensive audiological assessment to all stroke patients would be both costly and time-consuming. A brief hearing screening is thus required. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether a two-tiered hearing screening approach, with use of a handheld hearing screener and two validated hearing questionnaires could be used as a hearing screening for peripheral hearing loss and CAPD in stroke survivors. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening method was analyzed. Methods: This was a prospective study conducted in a tertiary neurology hospital. Forty-two consecutive stroke patients were recruited and tested within 3-12 months post-onset of their stroke. Three screening tools for the identification of hearing impairment were evaluated in this study: A handheld hearing screener for determination of peripheral audiometric hearing loss and two validated questionnaires (The Amsterdam Inventory Auditory for Disability (AIAD) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly (HHIE) questionnaires) for determination of peripheral hearing loss and/or CAPD. Results: The hearing screener had a sensitivity of 92. 59% detecting a hearing loss and specificity of 100%. The greatest test accuracy in identifying a central auditory processing type hearing impairment in stroke patients was found when the handheld hearing screener and the AIAD questionnaire were combined. Conclusion: This study is a first step toward addressing the complex auditory needs of stroke survivors in a systematic manner, with the ultimate aim to support their communication needs and long-term recovery and wellbeing. Registration: Project Identification number 11/0469 and REC ref 11/LO/1675

The Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Speech Discrimination and Verbal Communication in the Operating Room and the Role of Audio Communication Devices

Introduction Recent work has highlighted communication difficulties when wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in the clinical setting, but currently, there are little objective data on its effects. We assessed the impact of PPE on verbal communication in a simulated operating room and evaluated use of an audio communication device. Methodology Frontline health professionals across specialties including surgery, anesthetics, and nursing undertook speech discrimination testing with and without standardized levels of PPE in a simulated operating room environment. Background noise (30- and 70-a-weighted decibel multitalker babble) at 2 distances (2 and 4 m) were selected representative of operating room environments. Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) scoring (192 sentences per participant) was performed. A Digital Multichannel Transceiver System (DMTS) was evaluated. We assessed the effects of PPE use, distance, and use of the DMTS with pairwise comparisons, using a Bonferroni correction, and assessed participant experience via Likert scales. Results Thirty-one healthcare professionals were tested. Without PPE in 70-a-weighted decibel "babble,"median BKB sentence scores were 90% and 76% at 2 and 4 m (adjusted P < 0.0005). The median BKB sentence scores dropped to 8% and 4% at 2 and 4 m in PPE (adjusted P < 0.0005). Improved speech discrimination was achieved with DMTS use to 70% and 76% at 2 and 4 m. Personal protective equipment led to a statistically significant reduction in BKB scores across all conditions compared with baseline. Overall participant confidence in PPE clinical communication was low. Conclusions Addition of PPE dramatically impairs speech discrimination and communication in high levels of background noise characteristic of clinical environments, which can be significantly improved using DMTS. Measures should be taken by teams through both through reduction of background noise and consideration of assistive technologies maximizing patient safety. This may be further rehearsed in a simulation environment

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

Neuropsychological deficits in Posterior Cortical Atrophy and typical Alzheimer's disease:A meta-analytic review

Aims: To identify cognitive tests that best differentiate between Posterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA) and typical Alzheimer's Disease (tAD), as well as PCA and healthy control (HC) participants. Method: Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science were systematically searched using terms related to PCA, tAD, and cognitive testing. Seventeen studies were identified, including 441 PCA, 391 tAD, and 284 HC participants. Standardised effect sizes of mean scores were calculated to measure performance differences on cognitive tests for PCA versus tAD and PCA versus HC groups. Meta-analyses used a random effects model. Results: The most discriminating cognitive tests for PCA and tAD presentations were measures of visuospatial function and verbal memory. Large, significant effect sizes were produced for all measures of visuospatial function, most notably for Rey-Osterrieth Copy (Hedges' g =-2.79), VOSP Fragmented letters (Hedges' g =-1.73), VOSP Dot Counting (Hedges' g =-1.74), and VOSP Cube Analysis (Hedges' g =-1.98). For measures of verbal memory, the RAVLT delay and Digit Span Backwards produced significant medium effects (Hedges' g = .62 and-.56, respectively). Conclusion: Establishing a common framework for testing individuals with PCA has important implications for diagnosis and treatment, and forms a practical objective for future research. Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that measures of visuospatial function and verbal memory would form an important part of this framework. Crown Copyright (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

A systematic review and metanalysis of questionnaires used for auditory processing screening and evaluation

The recognition of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) as a distinct clinical condition that impacts hearing capacity and mental health has gained attention. Although pure tone audiometry is the gold standard for assessing hearing, it inadequately reflects everyday hearing abilities, especially in challenging acoustic environments. Deficits in speech perception in noise, a key aspect of APD, have been linked to an increased risk of dementia. The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for evaluating central auditory function in cases of mild hearing loss and normal audiometry results. Specific questionnaires play a crucial role in documenting and quantifying the difficulties faced by individuals with APD. Validated questionnaires such as the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale, the Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist, and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire are available for children, while questionnaires for adults include items related to auditory functions associated with APD. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified six questionnaires used for screening and evaluating APD with a total of 783 participants across 12 studies. The questionnaires exhibited differences in domains evaluated, scoring methods, and evaluation of listening in quiet and noise. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that individuals with APD consistently exhibited worse scores compared to healthy controls across all questionnaires. Additionally, comparisons with clinical control groups showed varying results. The study highlights (i) the importance of standardized questionnaires in identifying and assessing APD, aiding in its diagnosis and management, and (ii) the need to use sub-scores as well as overall scores of questionnaires to elaborate on specific hearing and listening situations. There is a need to develop more APD specific questionnaires for the adult population as well as for more focused research on APD diagnosed individuals to further establish the validity and reliability of these questionnaires

The efficacy of corticosteroid after facial nerve neurorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Objectives: The benefit of corticosteroids following facial nerve neurorrhaphy in the setting of complete transection is questionable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate corticosteroid efficacy on facial nerve regeneration and functional recovery after complete disruption and neurorrhaphy. Methods: Randomized controlled trials on both human and animal models from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE studying corticosteroid efficacy in complete facial nerve disruption followed by neurorrhaphy were included. Data were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis. The outcomes were evaluated from electrophysiology, histology, and functional recovery. However, no randomized controlled trial in human was performed. Possibly, performing human trials with histopathology may not be feasible in clinical setting. Results: Six animal studies (248 participants) met inclusion criteria. Electrophysiologic outcomes revealed no differences in latency (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = −1.97, 95% CI −7.38 to 3.44, p = 0.47) and amplitude (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI −0.44 to 1.18, p = 0.37) between systemic corticosteroids and controls. When analysis compared topical corticosteroid and control, the results provided no differences in latency (Mean Difference (MD) = 0.10, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.24, p = 0.16) and amplitude (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.10, p = 0.81). In histologic outcomes, the results showed no differences in axon diameter (MD = 0.13, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.41, p = 0.37) between systemic corticosteroid and control; however, the result in myelin thickness (MD = 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08, p < 0.05) favored control group. When comparing systemic corticosteroid with control in eye blinking, the results favored control (MD = 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06, p =  0.0004). Conclusions: This evidence did not show potential benefits of systemic or topical corticosteroid deliveries after facial nerve neurorrhaphy in complete transection when evaluating electrophysiologic, histologic, and functional recovery outcomes in animal models