title: The statistical basis for serial monitoring in audiology.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Audiologists regularly use serial monitoring to evaluate changes in a patient's auditory function over time. Observed changes are compared with reference standards to determine whether further clinical action is necessary. Reference standards are established in a control sample of otherwise healthy subjects to identify the range of auditory shifts that one might reasonably expect to occur in the absence of any pathological insult. Statistical approaches to this seemingly mundane problem typically invoke 1 of 3 approaches: percentiles of the cumulative distribution, the variance of observed shifts, and the "standard error of measurement." In this article, the authors describe the statistical foundation for these approaches, along with a mixed model-based alternative, and identify several necessary, although typically unacknowledged assumptions. Regression to the mean, the phenomenon of an unusual measurement typically followed by a more common one, can seriously bias observed changes in auditory function and clinical expectations. An approach that adjusts for this important effect is also described.
  
  
  METHODS
  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) elicited at a single primary frequency, f2 of 3175 Hz, were collected from 32 healthy subjects at baseline and 19 to 29 days later. Ninety percent test-retest reference limits were computed from these data using each statistical approach. DPOAE shifts were also collected from a sample of 18 cisplatin patients tested after 120 to 200 mg of cisplatin. Reference limits established according to each of the statistical approaches in the healthy sample were used to identify clinically alarming DPOAE shifts in the cisplatin patient sample.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Reference limits established with any of the parametric methods were similar. The percentile-based approach gave the widest and least precisely estimated intervals. The highest sensitivity for detecting clinically alarming DPOAE shifts was based on a mixed model approach that adjusts for regression to the mean.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Parametric methods give similar serial monitoring criteria as long as certain critical assumptions are met by the data. The most flexible method for estimating test-retest limits is based on the linear mixed model. Clinical sensitivity may be further enhanced by adjusting for regression to the mean.
authors.affiliation: Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (VA RR&D) National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA. garnett.mcmillan@va.gov
authors.forename: Garnett P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: McMillan
authors.forename: Kelly M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Reavis
authors.forename: Dawn
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Konrad-Martin
authors.forename: Marilyn F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Dille
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000970:Antineoplastic Agents / Q000009:adverse effects; D001299:Audiometry / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D002945:Cisplatin / Q000009:adverse effects*; D016903:Drug Monitoring / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000139:chemically induced / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006320:Hearing Tests / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy; D017084:Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous; D012016:Reference Values; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D000970:Antineoplastic Agents; D002945:Cisplatin
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2008 Dec;29(6):875-93
references.pmid: 18753950
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2009 Jun;20(6):374-80
references.pmid: 19594085
references.citation: Stat Med. 2009 May 30;28(12):1645-67
references.pmid: 19358144
references.citation: Hear Res. 1994 Nov;80(2):146-52
references.pmid: 7896573
references.citation: Br J Audiol. 2000 Oct;34(5):305-9
references.pmid: 11081755
references.citation: Am J Otol. 1992 Jan;13(1):55-67
references.pmid: 1598987
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2008 Aug;47(8):489-98
references.pmid: 18698523
references.citation: Clin Chem. 1987 Mar;33(3):381-6
references.pmid: 3815802
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2012 Sep;51(9):689-96
references.pmid: 22676700
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2012 May;51(5):362-72
references.pmid: 22436020
references.citation: J Speech Hear Disord. 1984 Aug;49(3):226-40
references.pmid: 6748618
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):93-112
references.pmid: 10501648
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Feb;105(2 Pt 1):782-98
references.pmid: 9972564
references.citation: J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;18(10):813-25
references.pmid: 18496992
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Nov;104(5):2925-34
references.pmid: 9821338
references.citation: Am J Audiol. 2006 Jun;15(1):3-13
references.pmid: 16803787
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jul;124(1):288-300
references.pmid: 18646977
references.citation: Int J Audiol. 2010 Feb;49(2):99-109
references.pmid: 20151884
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Feb;129(2):792-800
references.pmid: 21361438