Cited by 13Vestibular and auditory disordersHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Electrocochleographic findings in recurrent idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Ohashi, Toru, Nishino, Hirohito, Arai, Yoko, Nishimoto, Yositane, Kakutani, Tomoyasu, Koizuka, Izumi·2012·Acta Oto-Laryngologica

Abstract

Conclusion The main differences in electrocochleography (ECochG) between recurrent and nonrecurrent idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (iSSNHL) were the high prevalence of an abnormally increased action potential (AP) recovery (iR) in nonrecurrent iSSNHL and the very low prevalence of iR in recurrent iSSNHL. An enhanced SP/AP ratio, low AP threshold, low initial hearing level, and up-sloping type of audiogram appear to be favorable prognostic factors in recurrent iSSNHL. Objectives This study aimed to characterize differences in ECochG findings and other confounding prognostic factors between recurrent and nonrecurrent iSSNHL and to estimate how these findings are related to hearing outcome in recurrent iSSNHL. Methods ECochG was performed transtympanically in 23 and 42 ears with recurrent and nonrecurrent iSSNHL, respectively. AP recovery was measured using a paired-click stimulation paradigm. Differences in ECochG findings associated with confounding prognostic factors between recurrent and nonrecurrent iSSNHL, and between three outcome groups were assessed. Results iR was significantly more common in nonrecurrent iSSNHL (16 ears) than in recurrent iSSNHL (1 ear). In the outcome of recurrent iSSNHL, the prevalence rates of an enhanced summating potential (SP)/AP ratio, lower AP threshold, lower initial hearing level, and up-sloping type of audiogram were significantly higher in the cure group than in the improvement and no-recovery outcome groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/00016489.2012.682121

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ohashi, T., Nishino, H., Arai, Y., Nishimoto, Y., Kakutani, T., & Koizuka, I.
Affiliations
  • St. Marianna University School of Medicine (JP)
  • Japanese Red Cross Hadano Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Ohashi, Toru
Venue
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
Published
2012-06-12
Volume
132
Issue
10
Pages
1022-1027
ISSN
  • 0001-6489 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2251
OpenAlex
W2046777219
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Oto-Laryngologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
electrocochleography, summating potential, hearing outcomes, prognostic factors
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Audiometry, Evoked Response, Hearing Loss, Sudden, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hearing Loss, Sensorineural, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Recurrence, Reference Values, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Cohort Studies, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review