title: Can routine office-based audiometry predict cochlear implant evaluation results?
abstract: Determining cochlear implant candidacy requires a specific sentence-level testing paradigm in best-aided conditions. Our objective was to determine if findings on routine audiometry could predict the results of a formal cochlear implant candidacy evaluation. We hypothesize that findings on routine audiometry will accurately predict cochlear implant evaluation results in the majority of candidates.
  
  
  
  Retrospective, observational, diagnostic study.
  
  
  
  The charts of all adult patients who were evaluated for implant candidacy at a tertiary care center from June 2008 through June 2013 were included. Routine, unaided audiologic measures (pure-tone hearing thresholds and recorded monosyllabic word recognition testing) were then correlated with best-aided sentence-level discrimination testing (using either the Hearing in Noise Test or AzBio sentences test).
  
  
  
  The degree of hearing loss at 250 to 4,000 Hz and monosyllabic word recognition scores significantly correlated with sentence-level word discrimination test results. Extrapolating from this association, we found that 86% of patients with monosyllabic word recognition scores at or below 32% (or 44% for patients with private insurance) would meet candidacy requirements for cochlear implantation.
  
  
  
  Routine audiometric findings can be used to identify patients who are likely to meet cochlear implant candidacy upon formal testing. For example, patients with pure-tone thresholds (250, 500, 1,000 Hz) of ≥75 dB and/or a monosyllabic word recognition test score of ≤40% have a high likelihood of meeting candidacy criteria. Utilization of these predictive patterns during routine audiometric evaluation may assist hearing health professionals in deciding when to refer patients for a formal cochlear implant evaluation.
  
  
  
  4 Laryngoscope, 127:216-222, 2017.
authors: Department of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado, School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.|Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
authors: Samuel P
authors: SP
authors: Gubbels
authors: Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.|Department of Family Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
authors: Brian C
authors: BC
authors: Gartrell
authors: Department of Surgery, Division of Audiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
authors: Jennifer L
authors: JL
authors: Ploch
authors: University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
authors: Kevin D
authors: KD
authors: Hanson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D005260:Female; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018579:Patient Selection; D010824:Physicians' Offices; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013067:Speech Perception
keywords: Cochlear implant; adult; audiometry; candidacy; criteria; evaluation; hearing loss