3.10.R4 Recommendation
Remote-microphone listening devices
- Strength of recommendation:
- Conditional for intervention
- Level of evidence:
- Low
How the strength and level of evidence are graded
What the strength of a recommendation means
The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects, or vice versa, across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended.
Strong for (↑↑) or against (↓↓) intervention
For patients: Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not.
For clinicians: Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.
Conditional for (↑) or against (↓) intervention
For patients: The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.
For clinicians: Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences.
Neither intervention nor comparison (—)
The panel did not recommend for or against the intervention.
Source: GRADE Handbook, section 6.1, Table 6.1 (GRADE uses “weak” and “conditional” interchangeably).
For the rating of the strength of the recommendation, in addition to evidence from studies in FRDA, evidence from like conditions, clinical experience and expert consensus are taken into account when published evidence is not available.
The level of evidence is based on published evidence from studies in FRDA. If there is no published evidence in FRDA, evidence from other like conditions or clinical expertise may have been used to make the recommendation – this is graded as ‘very low’ or in some cases ‘low’ level evidence. See the table below for an explanation of the symbols used to grade recommendations.
| Strength of recommendation | Symbol | Level of evidence | Symbol |
| Strong for intervention | ↑↑ | High | ⨁⨁⨁⨁ |
| Conditional for intervention | ↑ | Moderate | ⨁⨁⨁◯ |
| Neither intervention nor comparison | — | Low | ⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Conditional against intervention | ↓ | Very low | ⨁◯◯◯ |
| Strong against intervention | ↓↓ |
We suggest using remote-microphone listening devices over not using any devices for individuals with Friedreich ataxia with auditory deficits.
Question
Should remote-microphone (FM) listening devices versus no devices be used for all people with Friedreich ataxia?
Justification
The management of auditory deficits was identified by the Patient and Parent Advisory Panel as a priority. Published evidence indicates that the prevalence of hearing difficulties is higher in in people with Friedreich ataxia compared to the general population.
Available evidence suggests that remote-microphone listening systems can improve speech perception in everyday (noisy) listening circumstances and aid communication.
Subgroup consideration
This recommendation is for individuals with Friedreich ataxia with auditory deficits. Developmental issues in pediatric populations should be considered: hearing impairment in children can affect speech, language, social and academic development.
Non-ambulant individuals are potentially less able to control listening/communication situations; for example, physical distance from the speaker and from noise sources in the environment. As such, they are likely to derive greater device benefit as the signal provided by the system is consistent regardless of the distance between speaker and listener.
Evidence to recommendation table (PDF)
Part of 3.10 Auditory and vestibular function in Friedreich ataxia
References (20)
1. Harding AE. Friedreich's ataxia: a clinical and genetic study of 90 families with an analysis of early diagnostic criteria and intrafamilial clustering of clinical features. Brain. 1981;104(3):589-620.
2. Dürr A, Cossee M, Agid Y, Campuzano V, Mignard C, Penet C, et al. Clinical and genetic abnormalities in patients with Friedreich's ataxia. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(16):1169-75.
3. Rance G, Fava R, Baldock H, Chong A, Barker E, Corben L, et al. Speech perception ability in individuals with Friedreich ataxia. Brain. 2008;131:2002-12.
4. Satya-Murti S, Cacace A, Hanson P. Auditory dysfunction in Friedreich ataxia: result of spiral ganglion degeneration. Neurology. 1980;30(10):1047-53.
5. Jabbari B, Schwartz DM, MacNeil DM, Coker SB. Early abnormalities of brainstem auditory evoked potentials in Friedreich's ataxia: evidence of primary brainstem dysfunction. Neurology. 1983;33(8):1071-4.
6. Starr A, Picton TW, Sininger Y, Hood LJ, Berlin CI. Auditory neuropathy. Brain. 1996;119 ( Pt 3):741-53.
7. Lopez-Diaz-de-Leon E, Silva-Rojas A, Ysunza A, Amavisca R, Rivera R. Auditory neuropathy in Friedreich ataxia. A report of two cases. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;67(6):641-8.
8. Spoendlin H. Optic cochleovestibular degenerations in hereditary ataxias. II. Temporal bone pathology in two cases of Friedreich's ataxia with vestibulo-cochlear disorders. Brain. 1974;97(1):41-8.
9. Ell J, Prasher D, Rudge P. Neuro-otological abnormalities in Friedreich's ataxia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47(1):26-32.
10. Fahey MC, Cremer PD, Swee TA, Millist L, Todd MJ, White OB, et al. Vestibular, saccadic and fixation abnormalities in genetically confirmed Friedreich ataxia. Brain. 2008;131:1035-45.
11. Maudoux A, Teissier N, Francois M, Van Den Abbeele T, Alberti C, Husson I, et al. Vestibular impact of Friedreich ataxia in early onset patients. Cerebellum Ataxias. 2020;7:6.
12. Monday L, Lesperance J, Lemieux B, Saint-Vincent H. Follow-up study of electronystagmographic findings in Friedreich's ataxia patients and evaluation of their relatives. Can J Neurol Sci. 1984;11(4 Suppl):570-3.
13. Monday LA, Lemieux B, St Vincent H, Barbeau A. Clinical and electronystagmographic findings in Friedreich's ataxia. Can J Neurol Sci. 1978;5(1):71-3.
14. Oppenheimer DR. Brain lesions in Friedreich's ataxia. Can J Neurol Sci. 1979;6(2):173-6.
15. Rance G, Corben L, Barker E, Carew P, Chisari D, Rogers M, et al. Auditory perception in individuals with Friedreich's ataxia. Audiology Neurootol. 2010;15(4):229-40.
16. Rance G, Corben LA, Du Bourg E, King A, Delatycki MB. Successful treatment of auditory perceptual disorder in individuals with Friedreich ataxia. Neuroscience. 2010;171(2):552-5.
17. Tye-Murray N. Foundations of aural rehabilitation: children, adults, and their family members. 3rd ed. New York: Delmar; 2009.
18. Miyamoto RT, Kirk KI, Renshaw J, Hussain D. Cochlear implantation in auditory neuropathy. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(2 Pt 1):181-5.
19. Frewin B, Chung M, Donnelly N. Bilateral cochlear implantation in Friedreich's ataxia: a case study. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(5):287-90.
20. Rance G, Starr A. Pathophysiological mechanisms and functional hearing consequences of auditory neuropathy. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 11):3141-58.
Disclaimer, intended use and funding
Disclaimer
The Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich ataxia (‘Guidelines’) are protected by copyright owned by the authors who contributed to their development or said authors’ assignees.
These Guidelines are systematically developed evidence statements incorporating data from a comprehensive literature review of the most recent studies available (up to the Guidelines submission date) and reviewed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework © The Grade Working Group.
Guidelines users must seek out the most recent information that might supersede the diagnostic and treatment recommendations contained within these Guidelines and consider local variations in clinical settings, funding and resources that may impact on the implementation of the recommendations set out in these Guidelines.
The authors of these Guidelines disclaim all liability for the accuracy or completeness of the Guidelines, and disclaim all warranties, express or implied to their incorrect use.
Intended Use
These Guidelines are made available as general information only and do not constitute medical advice. These Guidelines are intended to assist qualified healthcare professionals make informed treatment decisions about the care of individuals with Friedreich ataxia. They are not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing issues related to Friedreich ataxia. Rather, they are designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making.
These Guidelines are not intended to replace clinical judgment and other approaches to diagnosing and managing problems associated with Friedreich ataxia which may be appropriate in specific circumstances. Ultimately, healthcare professionals must make their own treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with their patients, using their clinical judgment, knowledge and expertise.
Guidelines users must not edit or modify the Guidelines in any way – including removing any branding, acknowledgement, authorship or copyright notice.
Funding
The authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the support of the Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA). The views and opinions expressed in the Guidelines are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FARA.