ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2015
Otoacoustic Emissions in Smoking and Nonsmoking Young Adults.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Otoacoustic emissions in neonates exposed to smoke during pregnancy.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study investigates the usefulness of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs) in detecting small changes in the hearing of young smoking adults.
methodsOtoacoustic emissions were acquired from the ears of 48 young adults (age, 20 to 27 years). The dataset was divided into two groups, smoking (24 persons/48 ears) and nonsmoking (24 persons/48 ears). The level of smoking was relatively small in comparison to previous studies, an average of 3.8 years and 8.7 cigarettes per day. In each ear three OAE measurements were made: TEOAEs, DPOAEs, and spontaneous OAEs (SOAEs). Pure tone audiometry and tympanometry were also conducted. Audiometric thresholds did not differ significantly between the datasets. Half-octave-band values of OAE signal to noise ratios and response levels were used to assess statistical differences.
resultsAveraged data initially revealed that differences between the two study groups occurred only for TEOAEs at 1 kHz. However when the datasets were divided into ears with and without SOAEs more differences became apparent, both for TEOAEs and DPOAEs. In ears that exhibited SOAEs, both smokers and nonsmokers, there were no statistically significant differences between evoked OAEs; however in all ears without SOAEs, evoked OAEs were higher in the ears of nonsmokers, by as much as 5 dB. These differences were most prominent in the 1-2 kHz range.
conclusionA general decrease in OAE levels was found in the group of smokers. However, in ears which exhibited SOAEs, there was no difference between the evoked OAEs of smokers and nonsmokers. We conclude that smoking had not yet measurably affected the ears of those with acute hearing (i.e., those who exhibit SOAEs). However, in ears without SOAEs, smokers exhibited smaller evoked OAE amplitudes than nonsmokers, even though their audiometric thresholds were within the norm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.