GIN Test: A Meta-Analysis on Its Neurodiagnostic Value

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_FILIPPINI_GIN_Test_A_MetaAnalysis_on_Its_Neurodiagnostic_Value_2020.PDF (887.35 KB)
Citações na Scopus
7
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2020
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER ACAD AUDIOLOGY
Autores
WONG, Bryan
MUSIEK, Frank
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Citação
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY, v.31, n.2, p.147-157, 2020
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate how effective the Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test is in separating populations who are and who are not at risk of having neurological damage related to the central auditory nervous system (CANS). This was investigated by asking three specific questions: (1) Does ear and side of lesion have an effect over the individual's performance? (2) How large is the difference in performance between control and neurological groups? (3) What are the diagnostic indices related to the GIN test? Data Collection and Analysis: A literature review was performed between April 2016 and April 2017. The eligibility criteria for inclusion were as follows: (1) studies that used the GIN test as an outcome measure, (2) studies that included adult participants who either had confirmed lesions or were at risk of having lesions to the CANS or related regions, and (3) studies that had a neurologically normal control group. From relevant studies that met eligibility criteria, information regarding study design, participants, lesion details and origins, use of additional assessments, GIN performance scores for both control (CTRL) and neurological (NRLG) groups, GIN cutoff scores and proportion of individuals with normal and abnormal performances were all included. Results: Nine studies were included, totaling 221 participants in NRLG (stroke = 90, epilepsy = 67, and blast exposure [BLST] = 64) and 262 in CTRL (Stroke = 106, Epilepsy = 98, and BLST = 58). No significant ear effects related to side of lesion were observed for the GIN test in neurological patients nor were there significant ear differences for normal individuals with symmetrically normal hearing. The GIN demonstrated consistency among different neurological populations, presented good sensitivity and specificity rates, and was overall accurate in discriminating between participants with neuroauditory lesions from neurologically normal individuals. Conclusions: The GIN is thus a clinically effective measure that provides insight into the CANS integrity and may aid in clinical diagnosis by distinguishing between populations who are and who are not at risk of having neurological damage affecting the CANS.
Palavras-chave
auditory perceptual disorders, Gaps-in-Noise, meta-analysis, nervous system diseases, sensitivity and specificity
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/35446
Referências
  1. American Academy of Audiology (AAA), 2010, GUID DIAGN TREATM MA
  2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2005, CENTR AUD PROC DIS
  3. Aravindkumar R, 2012, EPILEPSY BEHAV, V24, P126, DOI 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.03.004
  4. Baker RJ, 2008, LATERALITY, V13, P1, DOI 10.1080/13576500701507861
  5. Bamiou DE, 2006, NEUROLOGY, V67, P614, DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000230197.40410.db
  6. Bamiou DE, 2012, STROKE, V43, P1285, DOI 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.644039
  7. Bazilio Martha Marcela de Matos, 2012, J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol., V24, P174, DOI 10.1590/S2179-64912012000200015
  8. Boscariol M, 2015, EPILEPSY BEHAV, V53, P180, DOI 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.10.015
  9. EFRON R, 1985, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, V23, P43, DOI 10.1016/0028-3932(85)90042-9
  10. Gallun FJ, 2016, J REHABIL RES DEV, V53, P705, DOI 10.1682/JRRD.2014.12.0313
  11. Gallun FJ, 2012, J REHABIL RES DEV, V49, P1005, DOI 10.1682/JRRD.2012.03.0038
  12. Helfer KS, 2009, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V20, P264, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.20.4.6
  13. Higgins J, 2011, COCHRANE COLLAB, V5, P1, DOI 10.1002/9780470712184
  14. Humes LE, 2010, HEARING RES, V264, P30, DOI 10.1016/j.heares.2009.09.010
  15. Iliadou V, 2017, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V28, P463, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.16075
  16. Jafari Z, 2016, J STROKE CEREBROVASC, V25, P1403, DOI 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.02.030
  17. John AB, 2012, AM J AUDIOL, V21, P242, DOI 10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0023)
  18. Lavasani AN, 2016, EPILEPSY BEHAV, V60, P81, DOI 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.04.017
  19. Lister J, 2002, J ACOUST SOC AM, V111, P2793, DOI 10.1121/1.1476685
  20. Majak J, 2015, MED PR, V66, P145, DOI 10.13075/mp.5893.00041
  21. Musiek FE, 2005, EAR HEARING, V26, P608, DOI 10.1097/01.aud.0000188069.80699.41
  22. Musiek FE, 2011, BRAIN COGNITION, V76, P225, DOI 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.011
  23. Rabelo CM, 2015, CLINICS, V70, P606, DOI 10.6061/clinics/2015(09)02
  24. do Amaral MIR, 2010, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, V76, P745, DOI 10.1590/S1808-86942010000600013
  25. Samelli AG, 2008, INT J AUDIOL, V47, P238, DOI 10.1080/14992020801908244
  26. Schunemann H, 2013, HDB GRADING QUALITY
  27. Shinn JB, 2009, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V20, P229, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.20.4.3
  28. Tomlin D, 2015, EAR HEARING, V36, P527, DOI 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000172
  29. Wallace BC, 2012, J STAT SOFTW, V49, P1, DOI 10.18637/jss.v049.i05
  30. Weihing J, 2015, J AM ACAD AUDIOL, V26, P652, DOI 10.3766/jaaa.14108
  31. Wong ACW, 2015, INT J AUDIOL, V54, P29, DOI 10.3109/14992027.2014.952457
  32. Zaidan E, 2013, INT J AUDIOL, V52, P113, DOI 10.3109/14992027.2012.733421
  33. Zamyslowska-Szmytke E, 2009, AUDIOL NEURO-OTOL, V14, P296, DOI 10.1159/000212108

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MFT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/34
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03