Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Hearing Disorders: HELP
Articles by Gayla L. Poling
Based on 8 articles published since 2010
(Why 8 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Gayla L. Poling wrote the following 8 articles about Hearing Disorders.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update). 2019

Chandrasekhar, Sujana S / Tsai Do, Betty S / Schwartz, Seth R / Bontempo, Laura J / Faucett, Erynne A / Finestone, Sandra A / Hollingsworth, Deena B / Kelley, David M / Kmucha, Steven T / Moonis, Gul / Poling, Gayla L / Roberts, J Kirk / Stachler, Robert J / Zeitler, Daniel M / Corrigan, Maureen D / Nnacheta, Lorraine C / Satterfield, Lisa. ·1 ENT & Allergy Associates, LLP, New York, New York, USA. · 2 Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA. · 3 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. · 4 Kaiser Permanente, Walnut Creek, California, USA. · 5 Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. · 6 University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · 7 The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. · 8 Consumers United for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · 9 Ear, Nose & Throat Specialists of Northern Virginia, PC, Manassas, Virginia, USA. · 10 University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. · 11 Gould Medical Group-Otolaryngology, Stockton, California, USA. · 12 Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. · 13 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. · 14 StachlerENT, West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA. · 15 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. ·Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg · Pubmed #31369359.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently but not universally accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged ≥18 years and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition" (Rosenfeld et al. RESULTS: The guideline update group made DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term

2 Guideline Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update) Executive Summary. 2019

Chandrasekhar, Sujana S / Tsai Do, Betty S / Schwartz, Seth R / Bontempo, Laura J / Faucett, Erynne A / Finestone, Sandra A / Hollingsworth, Deena B / Kelley, David M / Kmucha, Steven T / Moonis, Gul / Poling, Gayla L / Roberts, J Kirk / Stachler, Robert J / Zeitler, Daniel M / Corrigan, Maureen D / Nnacheta, Lorraine C / Satterfield, Lisa / Monjur, Taskin M. ·1 ENT & Allergy Associates, LLP, New York, New York, USA. · 2 Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA. · 3 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. · 4 University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. · 5 Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. · 6 University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · 7 The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. · 8 Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE), Baltimore, Maryland, USA. · 9 Ear, Nose & Throat Specialists of Northern Virginia, P.C., Manassas, Virginia, USA. · 10 Gould Medical Group-Otolaryngology, Stockton, California, USA. · 11 Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. · 12 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. · 13 StachlerENT, West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA. · 14 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. ·Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg · Pubmed #31369349.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently, but not universally, accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged 18 and over and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's RESULTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss (KAS 1); clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy (KAS 7); and clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiological rehabilitation and other supportive measures (KAS 13). These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendation against the following: clinicians should DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term

3 Review Applying U.S. national guidelines for ototoxicity monitoring in adult patients: perspectives on patient populations, service gaps, barriers and solutions. 2018

Konrad-Martin, Dawn / Poling, Gayla L / Garinis, Angela C / Ortiz, Candice E / Hopper, Jennifer / O'Connell Bennett, Keri / Dille, Marilyn F. ·a VA Portland Health Care System , VA National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research , Portland , OR , USA. · b Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery , Oregon Health & Science University , Portland , OR , USA. · c Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Division of Audiology , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA. · d Walter Reed National Military Medical Center , National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center , Bethesda , MD , USA. · e Department of Otolaryngology , Yale University School of Medicine , New Haven , CT , USA. ·Int J Audiol · Pubmed #29157038.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To promote establishment of effective ototoxicity monitoring programs (OMPs), this report reviews the U.S. national audiology guidelines in relation to "real world" OMP application. Background is provided on the mechanisms, risks and clinical presentation of hearing loss associated with major classes of ototoxic medications. DESIGN: This is a non-systematic review using PubMed, national and international agency websites, personal communications between ototoxicity experts, and results of unpublished research. Examples are provided of OMPs in various healthcare settings within the U.S. civilian sector, Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). STUDY SAMPLE: The five OMPs compared in this report represent a convenience sample of the programs with which the authors are affiliated. Their opinions were elicited via two semi-structured teleconferences on barriers and facilitators of OMP, followed by a self-administered questionnaire on OMP characteristics and practices, with responses synthesized herein. Preliminary results are provided from an ongoing VA clinical trial at one of these OMP sites. Participants were 40 VA patients who received cisplatin chemotherapy in 2014-2017. The study arms contrast access to care for OMP delivered on the treatment unit versus usual care as provided in the audiology clinic. RESULTS: Protocols of the OMPs examined varied, reflecting their diverse settings. Service delivery concerns included baseline tests missed or completed after the initial treatment, and monitoring tests done infrequently or only after cessation of treatment. Perceived barriers involved logistics related to accessing and testing patients, such as a lack of processes to help patients enter programs, patients' time and scheduling constraints, and inconvenient audiology clinic locations. Use of abbreviated or screening methods facilitated monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective OMPs integrated audiological management into care pathways of the clinical specialties that prescribe ototoxic medications. More OMP guidance is needed to inform evaluation schedules, outcome reporting, and determination of actionable ototoxic changes. Guidance is also lacking on the use of hearing conservation approaches suitable for the mass testing needed to support large-scale OMP efforts. Guideline adherence might improve with formal endorsement from organizations governing the medical specialty stakeholders in OMP such as oncologists, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, ototolaryngologists and pharmacists.

4 Review Serial Monitoring of Otoacoustic Emissions in Clinical Trials. 2016

Konrad-Martin, Dawn / Poling, Gayla L / Dreisbach, Laura E / Reavis, Kelly M / McMillan, Garnett P / Lapsley Miller, Judi A / Marshall, Lynne. ·*VA RR&D Center of Excellence, National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research and Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon †Mayo Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Division of Audiology, Rochester, Minnesota ‡San Diego State University, School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego, California §VA RR&D Center of Excellence, National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research and Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, Oregon ||VA RR&D Center of Excellence, National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland, Oregon ¶Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Groton, Connecticut. ·Otol Neurotol · Pubmed #27518137.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is to provide guidance on the use of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) as a clinical trial outcome measure for pharmaceutical interventions developed to prevent acquired hearing loss secondary to cochlear insult. OAEs are a rapid, noninvasive measure that can be used to monitor cochlear outer hair cell function. Serial monitoring of OAEs is most clearly established for use in hearing conservation and ototoxicity monitoring programs in which they exhibit more frequent and earlier changes compared with pure-tone audiometry. They also show promise in recent human trials of otoprotectants. Questions remain, however, concerning the most appropriate OAE protocols to use and what constitutes a "significant" OAE response change. Measurement system capabilities are expanding and test efficacy will vary across locations and patient populations. Yet, standardizing minimal measurement criteria and reporting of results is needed including documentation of test-retest variability so that useful comparisons can be made across trials. It is also clear that protocols must be theoretically sound based on known patterns of damage, generate valid results in most individuals tested, be accurate, repeatable, and involve minimal time. Based on the potential value added, OAEs should be included in clinical trials when measurement conditions and time permit.

5 Review Clinical measures of auditory function: the cochlea and beyond. 2013

Baiduc, Rachael R / Poling, Gayla L / Hong, OiSaeng / Dhar, Sumitrajit. · ·Dis Mon · Pubmed #23507354.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

6 Review Understanding and preventing noise-induced hearing loss. 2013

Hong, OiSaeng / Kerr, Madeleine J / Poling, Gayla L / Dhar, Sumitrajit. · ·Dis Mon · Pubmed #23507351.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

7 Article Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities. 2012

Poling, Gayla L / Horwitz, Amy R / Ahlstrom, Jayne B / Dubno, Judy R. ·Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. g-poling@northwestern.edu ·J Assoc Res Otolaryngol · Pubmed #21938546.

ABSTRACT: Psychophysical methods provide a mechanism to infer the characteristics of basilar membrane responses in humans that cannot be directly measured. Because these behavioral measures are indirect, the interpretation of results depends on several underlying assumptions. Ongoing uncertainty about the suitability of these assumptions and the most appropriate measurement and compression estimation procedures, and unanswered questions regarding the effects of cochlear hearing loss and age on basilar membrane nonlinearities, motivated this experiment. Here, estimates of cochlear nonlinearities using temporal masking curves (TMCs) were obtained in a large sample of adults of various ages whose hearing ranged from normal to moderate cochlear hearing loss (Experiment 1). A wide range of compression slopes was observed, even for subjects with similar ages and thresholds, which warranted further investigation (Experiment 2). Potential sources of variance contributing to these individual differences were explored, including procedural-related factors (test-retest reliability, suitability of the linear-reference TMC, probe sensation levels, and parameters of TMC fitting algorithms) and subject-related factors (age and age-related changes in temporal processing, strength of cochlear nonlinearities estimated with distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, estimates of changes in cochlear function from damage to outer hair cells versus inner hair cells). Subject age did not contribute significantly to TMC or compression slopes, and TMC slopes did not vary significantly with threshold. Test-retest reliability of TMCs suggested that TMC masker levels and the general shapes of TMCs did not change in a systematic way when re-measured many weeks later. Although the strength of compression decreased slightly with increasing hearing loss, the magnitude of individual differences in compression estimates makes it difficult to determine the effects of hearing loss and cochlear damage on basilar membrane nonlinearities in humans.

8 Article Evaluation of a telephone speech-enhancement algorithm among older adults with hearing loss. 2011

Roup, Christina M / Poling, Gayla L / Harhager, Kimberly / Krishnamurthy, Ashok / Feth, Lawrence L. ·The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. roup.2@osu.edu ·J Speech Lang Hear Res · Pubmed #21646418.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: In this study, the authors evaluated a processing algorithm aimed at improving speech recognition via the telephone among older adults with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). METHOD: Thirty older adults with SNHL participated. Speech recognition was measured in quiet using the Modified Rhyme Test (MRT; Kreul et al., 1968) and the Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN; Bilger et al., 1984) sentences, and in noise using the Quick Speech in Noise (QSIN; Killion et al., 2004) test. Each test was presented via the telephone with and without processing. RESULTS: Significant improvements in recognition performance due to processing were observed for the SPIN and QSIN. The improvement on the QSIN was significantly greater than on the MRT and SPIN, likely because the MRT and SPIN sentences were presented in quiet, whereas the QSIN was presented in noise. Significant improvements in recognition performance were observed for both an offline version and a real-time version of the algorithm relative to the unprocessed condition, although no difference was noted between the 2 versions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that preprocessing the acoustic signal is a viable method of improving speech recognition via the telephone. The algorithm has the potential to benefit older adults with SNHL who struggle to communicate via the telephone with or without hearing aids.