Brenda M. Ryals

The effects of reduced cerebrovascular circulation on the auditory brain stem response (ABR)

The effect of decreased anterior (carotid) bloodflow on the auditory brain stem response (ABR) was studied in a group of middle-aged males with angiographically confirmed decreased carotid circulation who were candidates for internal carotid end-arterectomy. Individual and mean latencies from the experimental group were compared to latencies of a control group matched for age, sex, and hearing loss. Mean absolute latency of wave V was significantly longer in the group with decreased anterior circulation when compared to the matched control group. These findings are similar to those from studies examining decreased posterior (vertebrobasilar) circulation. Both the matched control and experimental group were also compared to clinic norms and judged for abnormality. None of the control group ABRs were judged abnormal, after correction for hearing loss, while 29% of the ABRs were judged abnormal from the group with decreased anterior circulation. Postoperative testing was performed 1 week after surgery to determine any immediate effects of revascularization of the ABR. No changes in absolute or interpeak latencies were observed for either ear between pre-and postoperative testing. It is concluded that patients with confirmed decreased cerebrovascular Circulation may show prolongation of absolute latency of wave V on ABR testing. Revascularization surgery in these patients appears to have no affect on their ABR within 1 week of surgery.

Changes to the editorial board and new guidelines for reporting population-based research.

169 The year 2015 ushers in several new changes for our journal. First, and most apparent, is the new online-only formatting for Ear and Hearing. Beginning with the January/February 2015 issue, Ear and Hearing is only available in print to members of the American Auditory Society who pay an additional fee (see www.auditorysoc.org for complete information). The online-only format allows us to make articles available to our readers more quickly and with enhancements such as color figures without charge to authors and immediate access to supplemental digital content. We think our readers will agree that this decision is not only environmentally sound but also fiscally responsible. Without the burden of postage and print, we can more effectively control costs while continuing to provide rapid access to the most important research.

Editorial: Uniform conflict of interest disclosure and publication efficiencies at Ear and Hearing.

Children diagnosed with hypoplasia, or narrowing, of the auditory nerve (AN) and who use a cochlear implant (CI) may experience a significantly reduced benefit if the compromised nerve is unsuccessful in transmitting electrical pulses to the auditory brainstem. In pediatric CI users diagnosed with a hypoplastic AN, we found significant abnormalities in the latency and morphology of the initial and long-term electrically evoked responses, which may reflect electrical spread to nonauditory areas. There was also reduced auditory development as measured by behavioral tests of speech perception. Children diagnosed with hypoplasia of the AN may be poor candidates for cochlear implantation.

Editorial note: Regarding sufficiency of authors' disclosures: Hearing levels of firefighters: risk of occupational noise-induced hearing loss assessed by cross-sectional and longitudinal data [Ear Hear 2005;26(3):327-340].

In accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (2007) and the Council of Science Editors (2006), the Editors of Ear and Hearing wish to set forth their concerns regarding the sufficiency of the authors’ disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in this article. Questions regarding the sufficiency of the disclosure were initially raised in July 2006 and became widely publicized in a front-page article in the June 22, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Ear and Hearing has conducted an examination of the facts underlying the questions that have been raised, including a review of court documents in the litigation discussed further below. Based on that review, we have concluded that the disclosures made in the Acknowledgments section of the article insufficiently informed readers of potential conflicts of interest and that, in part, that disclosure could be construed as misleading. The Editors asked the authors of the article to amend the Acknowledgments section to reflect the first author’s consultancy with Federal Signal Corporation (FSC) and to reflect the support provided by FSC for the study. The authors declined this request stating that they felt the disclosure sufficiently met Ear and Hearing Instructions to Authors. We respectfully disagree and provide the following information in an effort to provide full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article. FSC is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment, including sirens, and is a company for which the first author has provided consulting services. In 1999, approximately 33 separate lawsuits on behalf of thousands of firefighters were commenced against FSC in Illinois, and then consolidated for pretrial discovery. The lawsuits contend that FSC’s sirens cause hearing loss. Available information (publicly available court documents including depositions and invoices) clearly shows that the first author has provided consulting services to FSC since 1999 and that during the time the data for this article were analyzed and the manuscript was prepared, the first author provided consulting services to FSC. The Acknowledgments section of this article stated “The first author has provided consulting services for manufacturers of emergency firefighting equipment.” We believe that the first author’s specific consulting relationship with FSC should have been included in the Acknowledgments section. FSC is certainly a manufacturer of firefighting equipment but because it had a direct interest in the outcome of this study, we feel that the authors should have specifically named FSC. In our opinion the authors did not provide full and transparent disclosure of potential conflict of interest when the article was submitted for publication and in the Acknowledgments section of the article. Every author who publishes an article in Ear and Hearing is required to sign a “Copyright Transfer” form. In its “Financial Disclosures” section, the form states that “All funding sources supporting the Work and all institutional or corporate affiliations of the authors are acknowledged in a footnote in the Work.” The authors of the article in question signed the form. In the Acknowledgments section of the article the authors stated “No external funding was received for this study.” No footnote was provided. Publicly available court documents show that Thomas Jayne, a lawyer for FSC in the litigation, helped gather the data for this publication. Invoices show that from 2000 to at least 2004, Mr. Jayne and the first author discussed the hearing study. The first author has stated in a deposition that he welcomed the company’s “assistance” because he did not have “the time, or the energy, or the resources” to obtain the data from individual fire departments. Invoices, along with statements by the first author in a deposition and by Mr. Jayne in a sworn affidavit in the case, indicate that FSC asked Mr. Jayne to contact fire departments to obtain the data that the first author used in his study, and that FSC paid Mr. Jayne for this work. We believe the money paid by FSC to Mr. Jayne for these services, which supported the research underlying the preparation of the article, constitutes a source of “external funding” that should have been disclosed, even if the money was not paid to the authors, since it represents funds that “supported” the “work.” We are sympathetic to the first author’s expressed desire for help in obtaining the data necessary for the study, and he may well be right when he stated in a deposition that he “really couldn’t see any other way to do it.” In the same deposition, the first author said he did not know how the data were selected. He also indicated he did not know what other sources of data FSC considered before providing him the data to be used in the study. To the extent the data were obtained by a party with a direct interest in the outcome of the study, we believe our Editorial Board, our reviewers, and our readers needed to know this. This information was not disclosed in any form when the article was submitted for publication. Based on our own extensive review we have concluded that the disclosures provided by the authors were incomplete and misleading. More specifically, we believe the authors should have disclosed the support provided by FSC, its role in obtaining the data, and the specific on-going consultancy relationship of the first author with FSC. It may be useful here to remind our readership and potential authors that the disclosures currently required by Ear and Hearing are contained in at least two documents. These are the “Instructions for Authors” and the *Note: Copies of unreferenced documents cited or mentioned in this Editorial Note can be obtained by contacting the Editorial Office of Ear and Hearing at eheditor@cisat.jmu.edu.