ReviewHNO2014
[Objective diagnostic methods in pediatric audiology].
Review in HNO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A long-term follow-up study on otoacoustic emissions testing in paediatric patients with severe malaria in Gabon.Malaria journal · 2019Article
- Article
- Review
- [Intraoperative monitoring of cochlear nerve function during cerebello-pontine angle surgery].HNO · 2017Review
- Review
- Current audiological diagnostics.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective methods based on the measurement of otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and auditory evoked potentials (AEP) are indispensable in pediatric audiology especially for the early detection and therapy of congenital hearing impairment. The correct and efficient use requires knowledge and skills which are beyond the basic equipment of many users and require continuous updating. In the present review many aspects relevant for the safe handling of the methods and interpretation of the results are addressed. The presentation does not focus on the methods themselves but on the core problem of the practical daily routine, namely the qualitative and quantitative description of hearing loss in terms of its extent, the frequency range affected and the identity with respect to the type and site of the lesion. The certainty of the diagnosis can be optimized by observing few and simple rules. Central importance is attached to the thorough discussion of the interrelated parameters residual noise, signal-to-noise ratio and reproducibility in order to promote their correct use. Further subjects of this article are the recognition of pitfalls, the description of new developments, such as chirp and auditory steady-state responses (ASSR) and finally the consideration of the extraordinarily important aspect of maturation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25270968What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.