The aim of the study was to assess whether the auditory brainstem response (ABR) profiling test for schizophrenia (SZ) would recognise schizoaffective disorder (SZA) patients as SZ or not.

Male and female SZA patients (n = 16) from the psychosis unit at Uppsala University Hospital were investigated. Coded sets of randomised ABR recordings intermingled with patients with SZ, adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and healthy controls were analysed by an independent party blinded to clinical diagnoses.

The ABR profiling test for SZ was positive in 5/16 patients (31%) and negative in 11/16 patients (69%) with SZA. A surprising finding was that 4/16 (25%) SZA patients were positive for the ABR profiling test for ADHD.

With the ABR profiling test, a minority of patients with SZA tested positive for SZ. In contrast, a majority (85%) of patients with SZ in a previous study tested positive. These preliminary results leave us ignorant whether SZA should be regarded as a SZ-like disorder or a psychotic mood disorder and add to the questions regarding the validity of this diagnostic entity. However, the ABR profiling method is still in its infancy and its exploration in a range of psychiatric disorders is warranted.

To analyse how the auditory brainstem response changes in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

Data were collected via retrospective medical chart review.

Forty-three patients were included in this study. The mean latency of auditory brainstem response wave 1 was significantly longer for the affected side than for the unaffected side (p = 0.003). The mean latency of auditory brainstem response wave 1 was significantly shorter, and the mean amplitude of auditory brainstem response wave 1 was significantly larger, in the good response group compared to the poor response group. In forward conditional logistic regression analysis, auditory brainstem response wave 1 latency was an independent predictor of a good response (odds ratio = 34.37, 95 per cent confidence interval = 1.56–757.15, p = 0.025).

In patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss, the latency of wave 1 of the auditory brainstem response was significantly increased and was related to prognosis.

Conscious and deceptive exaggeration of hearing loss is termed pseudohypacusis. Even though the Stenger test has been used in the management of pseudohypacusis for almost a century, its sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for unilateral pseudohypacusis have not previously been reported, to our best knowledge. We investigated the efficiency of the Stenger test in detecting unilateral pseudohypacusis, accepting auditory brainstem response testing as the ‘gold standard’.

Candidates with questionable profound or total hearing loss were enrolled in the study. Pure tone audiometry, speech and tonal Stenger tests, and click test auditory brainstem response measurement were performed. Accepting auditory brainstem response testing as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Stenger test for unilateral, profound pseudohypacusis were assessed.

Two hundred military candidates were enrolled in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of the Stenger test in verifying unilateral, profound hearing loss were 99.4 and 70 per cent, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of the test were 87.5 and 98.4 per cent, respectively.

The Stenger test is widely used for the evaluation of unilateral or asymmetrical pseudohypacusis. In our opinion, it is a powerfully reliable test. More difficult cases require objective electrophysiological testing to verify functional hearing loss and to exclude specific diagnoses that may imitate pseudohypacusis.