当社グループは 3,000 以上の世界的なカンファレンスシリーズ 米国、ヨーロッパ、世界中で毎年イベントが開催されます。 1,000 のより科学的な学会からの支援を受けたアジア および 700 以上の オープン アクセスを発行ジャーナルには 50,000 人以上の著名人が掲載されており、科学者が編集委員として名高い
。オープンアクセスジャーナルはより多くの読者と引用を獲得
700 ジャーナル と 15,000,000 人の読者 各ジャーナルは 25,000 人以上の読者を獲得
Charles E. Bishop*,Alex Ashford,Jason Galster,Ian Windmill
Tinnitus is a problem commonly associated with unilateral sensor neural hearing impairments; however, little has been published on the most efficacious approach to treating tinnitus in this population. Previous studies have shown that hearing aids are beneficial in treating tinnitus in individuals with hearing loss, but this has not been thoroughly assessed in individuals with strictly unilateral sensor neural impairments. This is a pertinent area of investigation as conditions that commonly result in unilateral sensor neural hearing loss may lead to different outcomes. Between September 2011 and August 2012, 16 individuals with unilateral sensor neural hearing loss and tinnitus were dispensed a hearing aid for a three month field trial. Each participant was given the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) in pre- and posthearing aid fitting conditions. Differences in THI total scores as well as sub-scale item scores were assessed between test conditions. The amount of reduction in individual THI sub-scale item group scores varied greatly between test conditions. The items with an ‘unaided’ starting score of 38 or higher, and saw the greatest reduction from ‘unaided’ to ‘aided’ conditions, involved the impact of tinnitus on hearing function. Paired differences t-test of THI total score group means was significantly reduced (p<0.05) from the ‘unaided’ to the ‘aided’ condition. A similar result was seen with the visual analog scale (VAS). A statistically significant positive correlation was observed between the THI total score and the VAS in both test conditions. The current study demonstrated that use of a hearing aid by individuals with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss may lessen the handicapping effects of tinnitus. Consistent with existing literature in the area, observed benefits were variable with some individuals reporting greater benefit than others. The reason for this variability is not clearly understood.