Randomized trial examines correlations between PTA calculations and hearing outcomes in middle ear diseases, suggesting nuanced interpretations are needed.
PURPOSE: This study examined whether different methods for calculating pure tone average (PTA) yield clinically relevant differences in correlations with speech audiometry and hearing-related quality of life (QoL) in conductive and mixed hearing loss. Additionally, we investigated whether these associations vary among distinct middle ear pathologies: otosclerosis, acute otitis media (AOM) and chronic otitis media (COM). METHODS: In an ambispective cohort study at a tertiary referral center, 220 ears were analyzed. 194 ears were collected retrospectively. 26 patients were recruited prospectively. Inclusion criteria were adult age, confirmed diagnosis, near-normal bone conduction and conductive hearing loss without prior middle ear surgery. Pure-tone and Freiburg speech audiometry were analyzed along with the SSQ12 questionnaire in prospective patients. Multiple air conduction (AC) and air-bone gap (ABG) - PTA configurations were compared using linear regression and ANCOVA. RESULTS: up to 0.77). No clinically relevant differences were found between 4-frequency-PTAs using 3 kHz vs. 4 kHz. However, disease-specific patterns emerged: otosclerosis patients showed consistently poorer word recognition than AOM or COM patients at comparable PTA levels. QoL outcomes correlated significantly with AC-based PTAs but not with ABG-based PTAs or speech results. CONCLUSIONS: PTA calculation methods yield comparable correlations with speech understanding; inclusion of 3 or 4 kHz does not alter results meaningfully. Disease-specific discrepancies underscore the need for nuanced interpretation of PTA-speech relationships and support integrating both PTA and QoL measures in patient assessment. The study was conducted under clinical trial registration number DRKS00037758.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grueninger et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: