Audiology Research

Objective: Several questionnaires for the diagnosis and characterization of tinnitus are available in English but there is a need for Portuguese standardized questionnaires for use in research and in clinic. The goals of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the ESIT-SQ (European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire) to Portuguese, and to validate the questionnaire for clinical use. Methods: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument were performed. The translation stage included the translation and retroversion of the instrument in the languages of interest (English–Portuguese) by three bilingual translators. Subsequently, cross-cultural adaptation was performed involving an Experts Panel (n = 5) and a Patient Panel (n = 4) to evaluate the questionnaire versions obtained after translation and retroversion. Participants completed their evaluation in Microsoft Forms. All ambiguities and uncertainties were addressed by the research team. Validation of the questionnaire involved an ENT specialist (n = 1), health researchers (n = 3), and patients (n = 300). Results: The Portuguese version of the ESIT-SQ (ESIT-SQ-PT) was found to be culturally appropriate, clear, and valid for clinical use. Expert review confirmed strong face validity, with only minor textual adjustments needed. The validation study, involving both online and paper responses, demonstrated good reproducibility and internal consistency across diverse participant profiles. The questionnaire effectively captured a wide range of tinnitus characteristics and associated factors, and reliability analyses confirmed its temporal stability. Overall, the ESIT-SQ-PT proved to be a robust and reliable instrument for assessing tinnitus in Portuguese-speaking populations. Conclusion: The ESIT-SQ in Portuguese (ESIT-SQ-PT), had good face validity, was comprehensible, and was culturally appropriate; thus, it is a valid tool for the screening and assessment of tinnitus and associated symptoms in Portuguese populations.

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis of vestibular migraine (VM) and Meniere’s disease (MD) is based mainly on clinical criteria. The aim of this study is to systematically review and investigate the potential role of the video Head Impulse Test (vHIT) in the differential diagnosis between VM and MD. Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted, including studies from database inception to November 2023, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Database and Scopus were reviewed. The review included studies involving adult patients diagnosed with VM, MD, or healthy control individuals who underwent vHIT and reported data on vHIT abnormalities, gain, and refixation saccades. The AXIS tool was applied for risk of bias assessment in all cross-sectional studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to compare vHIT gains between individuals with VM and those with MD. Results: Eleven cross-sectional observational studies with a case–control comparison design were included, comprising a total of 362 patients with VM, 307 patients with MD, and 135 healthy control subjects. All studies applied the same diagnostic criteria for VM; however, varying criteria were used for the diagnosis of MD. Four studies evaluated the duration of vestibular symptoms, two assessed migraine duration, and six provided a rationale for excluding individuals with overlapping VM and MD diagnoses. Criteria for defining an abnormal vHIT result were specified in six studies. Seven studies reported vHIT gain values for the lateral semicircular canal, while eight presented data on saccade incidence and characteristics. Additionally, four studies were included in the meta-analysis, which yielded a mean difference in the vHIT gain of −0.0203 (95% CI: −0.0789 to 0.0383; p = 0.4968), indicating no statistically significant difference between patients with VM and those with MD. Conclusions: In this review, vHIT gain did not differ significantly between VM and MD groups, suggesting that vHIT gain alone has limited utility in their differential diagnosis. Combined saccade patterns may still prove clinically useful as more robust and consistent data become available.

Background and Aim: Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss is difficult to rehabilitate acoustically. Bilateral amplification may induce binaural interference, while CROS/BiCROS systems provide benefit only when the speech signal reaches the poorer ear. A hybrid approach combining CROS strategy with bilateral acoustic amplification, called Stereophonic Bilateral Contralateral Routing of Signal—StereoBiCROS—has recently emerged. Methods: A one-month home trial was conducted with hearing aids programmed in three listening modes: Stereophonic, BiCROS, and StereoBiCROS. Speech-in-noise perception was assessed in dichotic and reverse-dichotic conditions. Speech recognition thresholds were derived using logistic regression. Daily mode usage was extracted from datalogging. Pre/post subjective benefit was evaluated using the SSQ-15 and SF-12. Results: Eighteen participants (mean age 70.7 ± 8.2 years) used the devices 12.4 ± 1.6 h per day, predominantly in StereoBiCROS mode (76.9 ± 24.2%). In the dichotic condition, this mode yielded the best speech-to-noise ratio (0.96 ± 2.74 dB; p < 0.0001), outperforming unilateral rerouting (3.00 ± 2.05 dB; p = 0.001) and bilateral amplification (5.16 ± 1.31 dB; p = 0.001). In the reverse-dichotic condition, only bilateral amplification provided a non-significant improvement (3.08 ± 1.38 dB), whereas the other modes deteriorated intelligibility. SSQ-15 total and subscale scores significantly improved after one month, while SF-12 scores did not change. Conclusions: StereoBiCROS stimulation appears to be a promising acoustic alternative for improving speech intelligibility in noise and patient-reported outcomes in asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Further research is required to identify the most responsive audiological profiles.