ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017
Towards an optimal paradigm for intraoperative auditory nerve monitoring with auditory steady state responses.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Journal of clinical monitoring and computing 2017 end of year summary: anesthesia.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018Review
- Intra-operative hearing monitoring methods in middle ear surgeries.Journal of otology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auditory steady state responses (ASSR) may offer an alternative to brainstem auditory evoked potentials for monitoring of the auditory nerve during surgical procedures. In the current study, we evaluated the influence of noise on ASSR characteristics in total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). Simulated ASSR in real noise recorded during surgery under TIVA were constructed with known parameters. Influence of amplitude, modulation frequency, averaging sweeps and detection threshold on ASSR were evaluated. High amplitude, more sweeps and a liberal threshold facilitated detection. High amplitude ASSR (80 nV) were detected in up to 45 % with 16 s of data, in 80-90 % with 112 s. Near-threshold ASSR were detected in 0.8-25 %. False positives ranged between 0.3 and 10.3 %. Number of sweeps did not influence false positives. Amplitude errors varied between -61 and +39 % and improved with more averages but not with different thresholds. Modulation rate demonstrated the strongest influence on all parameters. 110 Hz yielded best, 90 Hz the worst results. Choice of parameters strongly influences detection and characteristics of ASSR. Optimal parameters enabled detection after 16 s in 45 %. Due to specific noise characteristics, modulation has a critical impact, which is currently not sufficiently recognized in ASSR studies.
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.