Premium
Is it reasonable to use 1 and 8 kHz anchor points in the medico‐legal diagnosis and estimation of noise‐induced hearing loss?
Author(s) -
Ali S.,
Morgan M.,
Ali U.I.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1749-4486
pISSN - 1749-4478
DOI - 10.1111/coa.12362
Subject(s) - noise (video) , medicine , hearing loss , noise induced hearing loss , point (geometry) , equating , audiology , estimation , statistics , noise exposure , computer science , artificial intelligence , mathematics , economics , image (mathematics) , rasch model , geometry , management
Background In the United Kingdom, use of 1 and 8 kH z as anchor point frequencies has been recommended for the medico‐legal diagnosis and estimation of noise‐induced hearing loss. There appear to be four assumptions behind the use of 1 and 8 kH z anchor point approach: (i) The frequencies of 1 and 8 kH z are not damaged by noise; therefore, the measured hearing thresholds at the said frequencies solely reflect age‐related hearing loss, even in the noise‐exposed; (ii) The hearing thresholds at 1 and 8 kH z are a valid predictor of the likely age‐related hearing loss thresholds at the other frequencies; (iii) Age and noise damage are always completely additive; (iv) Individual's susceptibility to age and noise damage is not proportionate. Doubts have been expressed in the medical circles about the legitimacy and validity of their use as anchor points. Objective of review Is it reasonable to use 1 and 8 kH z anchor points in the medico‐legal diagnosis and estimation of noise‐induced hearing loss? Type of review Medico‐legal. Search strategy Literature search; Medline, Embase, Internet, and medico‐legal records. Evaluation method Equating and comparing the assumptions in the anchor point approach with the information in medical literature. Results Based upon the information in medical literature, technical reports, and professional statements, the assumptions behind the use of anchor point approach cannot be reliably substantiated. Conclusions ‘Carte Blanche’ use of 1 and 8 kH z anchor points is probably unreasonable and may well be unsafe in the medico‐legal diagnosis and estimation of noise‐induced hearing loss.