Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24740734›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2015

Results in using the Freiburger monosyllabic speech test in noise without and with hearing aids.

J Löhler, B Akcicek, B Wollenberg, R Schönweiler, L Verges, Ch Langer, U Machate, R Noppeney, K Schultz, J Kleeberg and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hearing Impairment in Old Age.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Variability of word discrimination scores in clinical practice and consequences on their sensitivity to hearing loss.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J LöhlerResearch Institute for Applied Otolaryngology (WIAHNO), German Professional Society of ENT Physicians, A Non-profit Organization, Bramstedt, Germany, loehler@hno-aerzte.de.
B Akcicek
B Wollenberg
R Schönweiler
L Verges
Ch Langer
U Machate
R Noppeney
K Schultz
J Kleeberg
B Junge-Hülsing
L E Walther
P Schlattmann
A Ernst
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEJena University Hospital · DEStarnberg Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Freiburger Speech Test (FST) has been the gold standard in speech testing by word recognition score in Germany for many years. Recently, it has been demonstrated that for an amount of 104 test-persons there is no significant deviation within the lists. The objective of this study was to determine the percentiles of the distinct measuring situations in quiet and with noise (e.g. applied in hearing aid fitting) and the average benefit using hearing aids. In this prospective study, 623 patients with SNHL and equipped with hearing aids for at least 3 months have been investigated by means of the Freiburger monosyllabic test (FBE) without and with hearing aids and in quiet or with noise (CCITT noise, 65/60 dB signal-noise ratio) in free field conditions at 65 dB to determine the ratio of intelligibility. To investigate the different diagnostic conditions a linear mixed model was applied. The dependent binary variable corresponds to the number of understood syllables. The average age of all subjects was about 72.6 years. The average rate of understanding in the FBE without hearing aids and in quiet was 38.5 %, with hearing aids and in quiet 67.7 %, without hearing aids and with noise 22.4 %, and with hearing aids and with noise 39.8 %. All results were presented with the depending confidence intervals. The extent of hearing loss and the quality of hearing aid fitting can be successfully measured using the FST in quiet and with background noise (CCITT noise). In quiet, an average hearing improving gain of 29.2 % points and with noise a gain of 17.4 % points could be estimated with a successful hearing aid fitting.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsNoiseAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, SpeechFemaleGermanyHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSpeech Perception

Identifiers

PMID24740734
OpenAlexW1996579912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.