Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in children studying in special schools

Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and practicalities or testing children in special school settings using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and tympanometry. Children studying in special schools, particularly those with intellectual impairment, may be highly susceptible to hearing pathologies and can be difficult to assess using traditional test batteries. Researchers have recently suggested the possible applicability of TEOAE testing. in lieu of conventional behavioral methods, as a hearing screening device for persons with intellectual impairment. However, to date. few publications have detailed the particulars and results of such testing. Methods: A total of 489 children, with a mean age of 9.6 years, were tested in 15 special schools. Case information was obtained regarding birth history, medical history and type,degree of impairment, for later comparison with screening results. TEOAEs were collected using Quickscreen mode of the ILO292 Otodynamics Analyzer, whilst tympanometry was performed utilizing a Madsen Zodiac 901 Middle Ear Analyzer. Results: In total, 80% of students were able to be tested using TEOAEs. Average test time per ear was 2 min. However, a large proportion (40 of those able to be tested) failed TEOAE testing in at least one ear. No significant effects were found between could-not-test (CNT) cases and case history factors, A significant difference in TEOAE failure rates was found across history of neonatal special care nursery residency and history of parental concern regarding possible hearing impairment. Failure rates were higher for those who indicated positive histories. A total of 74% of subjects could be tested using tympanometry, with 25% of those able to be tested failing in at least one ear. Notably, neither type nor degree of impairment had any significant bearing on CNT or failure rates for tympanometry or TEOAE screening. Conclusions: Findings of the present investigation lend support to the review of hearing screening programs for children in special schools. with TEOAEs presenting as a potential alternative procedure. Further examination of the performance measures of protocols incorporating TEOAEs would now be advantageous. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Use of high and low velocity cervical manipulative therapy procedures by Australian manipulative physiotherapists

The use of cervical manipulation presents concerns because of a risk of devastating side effects of trauma to the vertebral artery. Little is known about the frequency of use of cervical manipulation versus passive mobilisation by physiotherapists. A recent national, multi-centre randomised clinical trial of the physiotherapy management of cervicogenic headache provided an opportunity to gain an insight into practices of a sample of manipulative physiotherapists across Australia. The treatment records for the 100 subjects who received only manipulative therapy, or manipulative therapy with exercise as per the trial protocol, were audited. The results revealed that cervical manipulation was used in 20.2% of the 1090 treatments provided to these subjects but cervical joint mobilisation only was used in the vast majority of treatments (77.6%). Nevertheless, 42% of subjects were treated with cervical manipulation at some time. In most instances, manipulation was accompanied by passive mobilisation in the same treatment session. Patients were manipulated on one to six occasions and this occurred predominantly in the latter half of the 12-treatment program. Cervical manipulation was used less frequently in the group who also received exercise. The data suggest that the physiotherapists participating in this study used cervical manipulation selectively and relatively conservatively considering the high use of cervical mobilisation techniques. This may reflect their due regard to safety in the treatment of the cervical region.

Comparison of two population pharmacokinetic programs, NONMEM and P-PHARM, for tacrolimus

Objectives: To compare the population modelling programs NONMEM and P-PHARM during investigation of the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in paediatric liver-transplant recipients. Methods: Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using NONMEM and P-PHARM on retrospective data from 35 paediatric liver-transplant patients receiving tacrolimus therapy. The same data were presented to both programs. Maximum likelihood estimates were sought for apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution (V/F). Covariates screened for influence on these parameters were weight, age, gender, post-operative day, days of tacrolimus therapy, transplant type, biliary reconstructive procedure, liver function tests, creatinine clearance, haematocrit, corticosteroid dose, and potential interacting drugs. Results: A satisfactory model was developed in both programs with a single categorical covariate - transplant type - providing stable parameter estimates and small, normally distributed (weighted) residuals. In NONMEM, the continuous covariates - age and liver function tests - improved modelling further. Mean parameter estimates were CL/F (whole liver) = 16.3 1/h, CL/F (cut-down liver) = 8.5 1/h and V/F = 565 1 in NONMEM, and CL/F = 8.3 1/h and V/F = 155 1 in P-PHARM. Individual Bayesian parameter estimates were CL/F (whole liver) = 17.9 +/- 8.8 1/h, CL/F (cutdown liver) = 11.6 +/- 18.8 1/h and V/F = 712 792 1 in NONMEM, and CL/F (whole liver) = 12.8 +/- 3.5 1/h, CL/F (cut-down liver) = 8.2 +/- 3.4 1/h and V/F = 221 1641 in P-PHARM. Marked interindividual kinetic variability (38-108%) and residual random error (approximately 3 ng/ml) were observed. P-PHARM was more user friendly and readily provided informative graphical presentation of results. NONMEM allowed a wider choice of errors for statistical modelling and coped better with complex covariate data sets. Conclusion: Results from parametric modelling programs can vary due to different algorithms employed to estimate parameters, alternative methods of covariate analysis and variations and limitations in the software itself.