Brain Stem Evoked Potential Findings in Children With Otitis Media

Auditory Brainstem Response Wave I Prediction of Conductive Component in Infants and Young Children

“…The poor specificity using wave V latencies was attributed to age-related variability and maturational changes associated with wave V latency. Mendelson et al (1979) also reported that wave I delays were superior to wave V in predicting the presence of otitis media. Given the findings of Mendelson et al (1979) and Fria and Sabo (1979), it is generally believed that wave I latency is more appropriate than wave V latency for predictions of conductive loss in infants and young children.…”

“…The relationship between ABR latency and the magnitude of conductive loss has been examined for both wave I (Berlin & Gondra, 1976;Chisin, Gafni, & Sohmer, 1983;Conijn, van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zanten, 1989;Eggermont, 1976;Fria & Sabo, 1979;Mendelson, Salamy, Lenoir, & McKean, 1979;Salomon & Elberling, 1988) and wave V (Borg, Löfqvist, & Rosén, 1984;Chisin et al, 1983;Conijn et al, 1989;Fria & Sabo, 1979;McGee & Clemis, 1982;van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zenten, 1988;van der Drift, van Zenten, & Brocaar, 1989;Yamada, Yagi, Yamane, & Suzuki, 1975). There are at least two methods that have been used to predict conductive hearing loss using wave I and wave V latency delays.…”

Auditory Brainstem Response Wave I Prediction of Conductive Component in Infants and Young Children

“…The poor specificity using wave V latencies was attributed to age-related variability and maturational changes associated with wave V latency. Mendelson et al (1979) also reported that wave I delays were superior to wave V in predicting the presence of otitis media. Given the findings of Mendelson et al (1979) and Fria and Sabo (1979), it is generally believed that wave I latency is more appropriate than wave V latency for predictions of conductive loss in infants and young children.…”

“…The relationship between ABR latency and the magnitude of conductive loss has been examined for both wave I (Berlin & Gondra, 1976;Chisin, Gafni, & Sohmer, 1983;Conijn, van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zanten, 1989;Eggermont, 1976;Fria & Sabo, 1979;Mendelson, Salamy, Lenoir, & McKean, 1979;Salomon & Elberling, 1988) and wave V (Borg, Löfqvist, & Rosén, 1984;Chisin et al, 1983;Conijn et al, 1989;Fria & Sabo, 1979;McGee & Clemis, 1982;van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zenten, 1988;van der Drift, van Zenten, & Brocaar, 1989;Yamada, Yagi, Yamane, & Suzuki, 1975). There are at least two methods that have been used to predict conductive hearing loss using wave I and wave V latency delays.…”

Effects of Conductive Hearing Loss on Auditory Brainstem Response

“…10 -12 Additionally, it has been suggested that these increased latency values can be predicted by the magnitude of the conductive component. This is a point that has not been supported by the studies of Mendelson et al, 13 Clemis and Mitchell," and Yamada et al 5 In the Mendelson et al series, comparative audiometric data for most subjects was unavailable. Technical factors probably biased the results of Clemis and Mitchell, and Yamada et al may have shown poor correlation because of the dissimilar stimuli used in the study (ie, click for ABR and tone bursts for assessing audiometric thresholds).…”

Prevalence of Hearing Loss in High Risk Infants of Mediocre Socio-economic Background at Around One Year of Age and Their Correlation with Risk Factors

“…We had three cases of otitis media; all three had conductive loss, so this factor was also not tested for correlation for obvious reasons and Mendelson et al [28] had shown that hearing loss was reversible after the otitis had resolved.…”

Auditory Brainstem Response Wave I Prediction of Conductive Component in Infants and Young Children

“…The poor specificity using wave V latencies was attributed to age-related variability and maturational changes associated with wave V latency. Mendelson et al (1979) also reported that wave I delays were superior to wave V in predicting the presence of otitis media. Given the findings of Mendelson et al (1979) and Fria and Sabo (1979), it is generally believed that wave I latency is more appropriate than wave V latency for predictions of conductive loss in infants and young children.…”

“…The relationship between ABR latency and the magnitude of conductive loss has been examined for both wave I (Berlin & Gondra, 1976;Chisin, Gafni, & Sohmer, 1983;Conijn, van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zanten, 1989;Eggermont, 1976;Fria & Sabo, 1979;Mendelson, Salamy, Lenoir, & McKean, 1979;Salomon & Elberling, 1988) and wave V (Borg, Löfqvist, & Rosén, 1984;Chisin et al, 1983;Conijn et al, 1989;Fria & Sabo, 1979;McGee & Clemis, 1982;van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zenten, 1988;van der Drift, van Zenten, & Brocaar, 1989;Yamada, Yagi, Yamane, & Suzuki, 1975). There are at least two methods that have been used to predict conductive hearing loss using wave I and wave V latency delays.…”

Effects of Conductive Hearing Loss on Auditory Brainstem Response

“…10 -12 Additionally, it has been suggested that these increased latency values can be predicted by the magnitude of the conductive component. This is a point that has not been supported by the studies of Mendelson et al, 13 Clemis and Mitchell," and Yamada et al 5 In the Mendelson et al series, comparative audiometric data for most subjects was unavailable. Technical factors probably biased the results of Clemis and Mitchell, and Yamada et al may have shown poor correlation because of the dissimilar stimuli used in the study (ie, click for ABR and tone bursts for assessing audiometric thresholds).…”

Prevalence of Hearing Loss in High Risk Infants of Mediocre Socio-economic Background at Around One Year of Age and Their Correlation with Risk Factors

“…We had three cases of otitis media; all three had conductive loss, so this factor was also not tested for correlation for obvious reasons and Mendelson et al [28] had shown that hearing loss was reversible after the otitis had resolved.…”

Auditory Brainstem Response Wave I Prediction of Conductive Component in Infants and Young Children

“…The poor specificity using wave V latencies was attributed to age-related variability and maturational changes associated with wave V latency. Mendelson et al (1979) also reported that wave I delays were superior to wave V in predicting the presence of otitis media. Given the findings of Mendelson et al (1979) and Fria and Sabo (1979), it is generally believed that wave I latency is more appropriate than wave V latency for predictions of conductive loss in infants and young children.…”

“…The relationship between ABR latency and the magnitude of conductive loss has been examined for both wave I (Berlin & Gondra, 1976;Chisin, Gafni, & Sohmer, 1983;Conijn, van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zanten, 1989;Eggermont, 1976;Fria & Sabo, 1979;Mendelson, Salamy, Lenoir, & McKean, 1979;Salomon & Elberling, 1988) and wave V (Borg, Löfqvist, & Rosén, 1984;Chisin et al, 1983;Conijn et al, 1989;Fria & Sabo, 1979;McGee & Clemis, 1982;van der Drift, Brocaar, & van Zenten, 1988;van der Drift, van Zenten, & Brocaar, 1989;Yamada, Yagi, Yamane, & Suzuki, 1975). There are at least two methods that have been used to predict conductive hearing loss using wave I and wave V latency delays.…”

Effects of Conductive Hearing Loss on Auditory Brainstem Response

“…10 -12 Additionally, it has been suggested that these increased latency values can be predicted by the magnitude of the conductive component. This is a point that has not been supported by the studies of Mendelson et al, 13 Clemis and Mitchell," and Yamada et al 5 In the Mendelson et al series, comparative audiometric data for most subjects was unavailable. Technical factors probably biased the results of Clemis and Mitchell, and Yamada et al may have shown poor correlation because of the dissimilar stimuli used in the study (ie, click for ABR and tone bursts for assessing audiometric thresholds).…”

Prevalence of Hearing Loss in High Risk Infants of Mediocre Socio-economic Background at Around One Year of Age and Their Correlation with Risk Factors

“…We had three cases of otitis media; all three had conductive loss, so this factor was also not tested for correlation for obvious reasons and Mendelson et al [28] had shown that hearing loss was reversible after the otitis had resolved.…”