首页> 外文期刊>Military Medicine: Official Journal of AMSUS, The Society of the Federal Health Agencies >A comparison of the military entrance processing station screening audiogram with the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System reference audiogram at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 2000.
【24h】

A comparison of the military entrance processing station screening audiogram with the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System reference audiogram at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in 2000.

机译:将2000年俄克拉荷马州西尔堡的军事入口处理站筛查听力图与国防职业与环境卫生准备系统参考听力图进行了比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The Department of Defense Hearing Conservation Program requires that a reference audiogram be performed at initial entry training (IET), before noise exposure. In the Army, only Fort Sill, home of the field artillery, and Fort Benning, home of the infantry, are in compliance. All military applicants receive a screening audiogram at a military entrance processing station (MEPS) to qualify for service. This audiogram does not meet the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System-Hearing Conservation (DOEHRS-HC) standard. Nevertheless, it has been proposed that the MEPS screen be used as the reference because of limited resources and time during IET medical in-processing. METHODS: A total of 11,816 individual reference audiograms performed at Fort Sill 95th Adjutant General Recruit Reception Center in 2000 were identified in the DOEHRS-HC database. Results of the MEPS screening audiograms were found for 11,311 (96%) of these individuals. The two audiograms were compared by frequency and ear and by using the two Department of Defense criteria for threshold shift. RESULTS: A total of 14.49% (95% confidence interval, 14.48-14.50%) of audiograms using the three-frequency average difference and 23.19% (95% confidence interval, 23.18-23.20%) using the four-frequency difference in either ear demonstrated a threshold shift. The mean difference in intensity between the two audiograms ranged from 5 to 12 dB and varied by frequency and ear, with the greatest differences being seen at 500 and 6,000 kHz and in the left ear, compared with the right ear. The mean threshold level was higher for each frequency in the DOEHRS-HC audiogram, compared with the MEPS audiogram. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 15% of soldiers at Fort Sill in 2000 showed a clinically significant threshold difference between their MEPS screening and the DOEHRS-HC baseline audiogram. Methodological variations in testing and interval noise-induced hearing loss could account for these differences. The results do not support the use of the MEPS screening audiogram as the reference audiogram. Compliance with the Hearing Conservation Program in the Army would require either improving MEPS testing to DOEHRS-HC standards or performing baseline audiograms at all five IET sites.
机译:背景:国防部听力保护计划要求在噪声暴露之前的初次进入训练(IET)中执行参考听力图。在陆军中,只有野战炮兵家乡西尔堡和步兵家乡本宁堡符合要求。所有军事申请人都在军事入口处理站(MEPS)收到筛选听力图,以符合服役资格。该听力图不符合国防职业和环境健康就绪系统听力保护(DOEHRS-HC)标准。然而,由于在IET医疗过程中的资源和时间有限,因此建议将MEPS屏幕用作参考。方法:在DOEHRS-HC数据库中,确定了2000年在西尔堡第95副官招募中心接收的总共11,816份个人参考听力图。对这些人的11,311(96%)人进行了MEPS筛查听力图的结果。通过频率和耳朵比较两个听力图,并使用美国国防部的两个阈值偏移标准进行比较。结果:使用三频平均差,总共有14.49%(95%置信区间,14.48-14.50%)的听力图,而使用两只耳的四频差则为23.19%(95%置信区间,23.18-23.20%)表现出阈值变化。两次听力图之间的平均强度差在5至12 dB之间,并且随频率和耳朵的不同而变化,与右耳相比,最大的差异出现在500和6,000 kHz以及左耳。与MEPS听力图相比,DOEHRS-HC听力图中的每个频率的平均阈值水平更高。结论:2000年,在西尔堡,大约15%的士兵在其MEPS筛查与DOEHRS-HC基线听力图之间显示出临床上显着的阈值差异。测试方法的差异和间隔噪声引起的听力损失可能是造成这些差异的原因。结果不支持将MEPS筛选听力图用作参考听力图。为了符合陆军听力保护计划,需要将MEPS测试改进为DOEHRS-HC标准,或者在所有五个IET站点执行基准听力图。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号