Comparative multivariate analyses of transient otoacoustic emissions and distorsion products in normal and impaired hearing.

BACKGROUND AND AIM The clinical utility of otoacoustic emissions as a noninvasive objective test of cochlear function has been long studied. Both transient otoacoustic emissions and distorsion products can be used to identify hearing loss, but to what extent they can be used as predictors for hearing loss is still debated. Most studies agree that multivariate analyses have better test performances than univariate analyses. The aim of the study was to determine transient otoacoustic emissions and distorsion products performance in identifying normal and impaired hearing loss, using the pure tone audiogram as a gold standard procedure and different multivariate statistical approaches. METHODS The study included 105 adult subjects with normal hearing and hearing loss who underwent the same test battery: pure-tone audiometry, tympanometry, otoacoustic emission tests. We chose to use the logistic regression as a multivariate statistical technique. Three logistic regression models were developed to characterize the relations between different risk factors (age, sex, tinnitus, demographic features, cochlear status defined by otoacoustic emissions) and hearing status defined by pure-tone audiometry. The multivariate analyses allow the calculation of the logistic score, which is a combination of the inputs, weighted by coefficients, calculated within the analyses. The accuracy of each model was assessed using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. We used the logistic score to generate receivers operating curves and to estimate the areas under the curves in order to compare different multivariate analyses. RESULTS We compared the performance of each otoacoustic emission (transient, distorsion product) using three different multivariate analyses for each ear, when multi-frequency gold standards were used. We demonstrated that all multivariate analyses provided high values of the area under the curve proving the performance of the otoacoustic emissions. Each otoacoustic emission test presented high values of area under the curve, suggesting that implementing a multivariate approach to evaluate the performances of each otoacoustic emission test would serve to increase the accuracy in identifying the normal and impaired ears. We encountered the highest area under the curve value for the combined multivariate analysis suggesting that both otoacoustic emission tests should be used in assessing hearing status. Our multivariate analyses revealed that age is a constant predictor factor of the auditory status for both ears, but the presence of tinnitus was the most important predictor for the hearing level, only for the left ear. Age presented similar coefficients, but tinnitus coefficients, by their high value, produced the highest variations of the logistic scores, only for the left ear group, thus increasing the risk of hearing loss. We did not find gender differences between ears for any otoacoustic emission tests, but studies still debate this question as the results are contradictory. Neither gender, nor environment origin had any predictive value for the hearing status, according to the results of our study. CONCLUSION Like any other audiological test, using otoacoustic emissions to identify hearing loss is not without error. Even when applying multivariate analysis, perfect test performance is never achieved. Although most studies demonstrated the benefit of using the multivariate analysis, it has not been incorporated into clinical decisions maybe because of the idiosyncratic nature of multivariate solutions or because of the lack of the validation studies.