OBJECTIVE: Qualitative methodologies are commonly adopted in hearing loss research. Grounded theory methodology is increasingly used to establish novel theories explaining experiences related to hearing loss. Establishing and improving the quality of grounded theory studies has been emphasized as critical to ensuring theoretical trustworthiness. Thus, the primary aim of the present study was to systematically review hearing loss research studies that have applied grounded theory methodology and assess the methodological quality of those grounded theory applications. Secondarily aims were to (i) explore how grounded theory methodology has been applied to investigate hearing loss, and (ii) use the findings of the review to develop a set of guidelines to aid the future high-quality application of grounded theory methodology to hearing loss research.
METHODS: Original peer-reviewed studies applying grounded theory methodology and published in English were identified through systematic searches in 10 databases; Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCO, Global Health, MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The quality of studies was assessed according to 12 grounded theory principles using the Guideline for Reporting, Evaluating, and applying the core principles of Grounded Theory studies (GUREGT) tool. Data were analyzed using qualitative inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: After the removal of duplicates, 155 articles were retrieved. Of those, 39 met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. An increase in the adoption of grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss was identified with the number of published studies tripling in the last 5 years. Critical appraisal using the GUREGT tool identified four studies as high-quality. Most included studies were of moderate study quality (n = 25), and 10 were classified as being of low study quality. Using inductive thematic analysis, the included studies investigated one of four areas relating to hearing loss: (a) Living with hearing loss, (b) Identity and hearing loss, (c) Coping strategies for hearing loss, and (d) Audiological counseling and rehabilitation. Analysis also identified four main grounded theory factors frequently overlooked in hearing loss research: the different schools of grounded theory, sampling strategy, sample size, and the depth of grounded theory application.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of grounded theory methodology is increasing at a rapid rate in hearing loss research. Despite this, studies conducted in the field to date do not meet and apply the full spectrum of grounded theory principles, as outlined by the GUREGT tool. To improve methodological rigor in future studies using grounded theory, we propose a set of guidelines that address the most commonly overlooked methodological considerations in hearing loss studies to date. The guidelines are designed to aid researchers to achieve high methodological quality in any field, improve qualitative rigor, and promote theoretical credibility.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of long-term, often asymptomatic, middle ear infection in young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is more likely to be achieved when ear health and hearing checks are routinely undertaken in primary healthcare. Evidence consistently demonstrates the adverse impacts of this condition on the development and wellbeing of children and their families. We aimed to develop feasible, evidence- and consensus-based primary healthcare recommendations addressing the components and timing of ear health and hearing checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged under 6 years, not already known to have, nor being actively managed for, ear and hearing problems.
METHODS: A 22-person working group comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous members from the primary healthcare, ear, hearing, and research sectors provided guidance of the project. A systematic scoping review addressed research questions relating to primary health ear health and hearing checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other populations at increased risk of persistent ear health problems. Twelve primary studies and eleven guidelines published between 1998 and 2020 were identified and reviewed. Quality and certainty of evidence and risk of bias ratings were completed for studies and guidelines. In the absence of certain and direct evidence, findings and draft recommendations were presented for consensus input to a 79-member expert panel using a modified e-Delphi process. Recommendations were finalised in consultation with working group members and presented to expert panel members for input on considerations relating to implementation.
RESULTS: Overall, the quality, certainty, and directness of evidence in the studies and guidelines reviewed was low. However, the findings provided a basis and structure for the draft recommendations presented during the consensus-building process. After two e-Delphi rounds, seven goals and eight recommendations on the components and timing of Ear Health and Hearing Checks in primary healthcare for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were developed.
CONCLUSIONS: The systematic scoping review and consensus-building process provided a pragmatic approach for producing strong recommendations within a reasonably short timeframe, despite the low quality and certainty of evidence, and paucity of studies pertaining to primary healthcare settings.

For decades, monosyllabic word-recognition in quiet (WRQ) has been the default test of speech recognition in routine audiologic assessment. The continued use of WRQ scores is noteworthy in part because difficulties understanding speech in noise (SIN) is perhaps the most common complaint of individuals with hearing loss. The easiest way to integrate SIN measures into routine clinical practice would be for SIN to replace WRQ assessment as the primary test of speech perception. To facilitate this goal, we predicted classifications of WRQ scores from the QuickSIN signal to noise ratio (SNR) loss and hearing thresholds.
We examined data from 5808 patients who underwent audiometric assessment at the Stanford Ear Institute. All individuals completed pure-tone audiometry, and speech assessment consisting of monaural WRQ, and monaural QuickSIN. We then performed multiple-logistic regression to determine whether classification of WRQ scores could be predicted from pure-tone thresholds and QuickSIN SNR losses.
Many patients displayed significant challenges on the QuickSIN despite having excellent WRQ scores. Performance on both measures decreased with hearing loss. However, decrements in performance were observed with less hearing loss for the QuickSIN than for WRQ. Most important, we demonstrate that classification of good or excellent word-recognition scores in quiet can be predicted with high accuracy by the high-frequency pure-tone average and the QuickSIN SNR loss.
Taken together, these data suggest that SIN measures provide more information than WRQ. More important, the predictive power of our model suggests that SIN can replace WRQ in most instances, by providing guidelines as to when performance in quiet is likely to be excellent and does not need to be measured. Making this subtle, but profound shift to clinical practice would enable routine audiometric testing to be more sensitive to patient concerns, and may benefit both clinicians and researchers.

美国医学遗传学和基因组学学院于2022年2月发布了2022版美国听力损失临床评估和病因诊断临床实践资源（简称美国指南），2023年1月中国耳聋基因诊断与遗传咨询临床实践指南（2023）发布（简称中国指南）。中美指南在框架上都涉及遗传性听力损失的诊断和遗传咨询，不同之处在于，美国指南对先天性听力损失中遗传以外的病因及其检测手段进行了分析（如巨细胞病毒感染），中国指南则对遗传性听力损失的临床治疗和预防给出了明确建议。本文比较了中美指南的差异，重点介绍美国指南中值得我们借鉴的地方，以期为相关从业者及临床医生提供参考。.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0 to 18 years.
METHODS: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians\' guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association\'s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions.
RESULTS: The evaluation and diagnosis of hearing loss: universal newborn hearing screening, laboratory testing, congenital infections (especially cytomegalovirus), genetic testing and main syndromes, radiologic imaging studies, vestibular assessment of children with hearing loss, auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and noise-induced hearing loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Every child with suspected hearing loss has the right to diagnosis and appropriate treatment if necessary. This task force considers 5 essential rights: (1) Otolaryngologist consultation; (2) Speech assessment and therapy; (3) Diagnostic tests; (4) Treatment; (5) Ophthalmologist consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the main evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hearing loss in children and adolescents aged 0-18 years.
METHODS: Task force members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database search, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Articles written in English or Portuguese on childhood hearing loss were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians\' guideline grading system and the American Thyroid Association\'s guideline criteria were used for critical appraisal of evidence and recommendations for therapeutic interventions.
RESULTS: The topics were divided into 2 parts: (1) treatment of sensorineural hearing loss: individual hearing aids, bilateral cochlear implants, cochlear implants in young children, unilateral hearing loss, and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder; and (2) treatment of conductive/mixed hearing loss: external/middle ear malformations, ventilation tube insertion, and tympanoplasty in children.
CONCLUSIONS: In children with hearing loss, in addition to speech therapy, Hearing AIDS (HAs) or implantable systems may be indicated. Even in children with profound hearing loss, both the use of HAs and behavioral assessments while using the device are important.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss poses a significant public health challenge as a common chronic condition with many known side effects that are often worse when left untreated. Aural rehabilitation (AR) is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of interventions (e.g., informational counseling and perceptual training) designed to reduce deficits related to hearing loss that may stand alone or be used in combination as part of a holistic plan.
OBJECTIVE: This evidence-based clinical practice guideline is intended to inform the implementation of person-centered AR to adults with hearing loss. Given the well-known benefits of sensory management, it was not included within the scope of this guideline. The recommendations aim to help clinicians, individuals with hearing loss, and other stakeholders make evidence-informed treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes, as well as provide payers and policymakers with information detailing a comprehensive approach to AR.
METHODS: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and a multidisciplinary panel of subject matter experts prioritized key clinical questions and outcomes that served as the foundation of the guideline. The clinical recommendations were based on a comprehensive systematic review and a meta-analysis of 85 studies published between 1978 and 2021.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the current state of the evidence, resource considerations, patient acceptability, clinical feasibility, and the overall balance of benefits and harms, ASHA developed several evidence-based recommendations for the provision of AR to adults with hearing loss. Each recommendation is accompanied by a series of key practice points to support its implementation within a person-centered framework.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions.
METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting.
RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set.
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.

The indications for cochlear implantation have expanded to include individuals with profound sensorineural hearing loss in the impaired ear and normal hearing (NH) in the contralateral ear, known as single-sided deafness (SSD). There are additional considerations for the clinical assessment and management of adult cochlear implant candidates and recipients with SSD as compared to conventional cochlear implant candidates with bilateral moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss. The present report reviews the current evidence relevant to the assessment and management of adults with SSD. A systematic review was also conducted on published studies that investigated outcomes of cochlear implant use on measures of speech recognition in quiet and noise, sound source localization, tinnitus perception, and quality of life for this patient population. Expert consensus and systematic review of the current literature were combined to provide guidance for the clinical assessment and management of adults with SSD.