ReviewHNO2016
[Evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation using the Freiburg Monosyllabic Test].
Review in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- [In adaptive measurement: Shortened Freiburg monosyllabic test vs. Oldenburg sentence test in noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2025Article
- [Fitting of cochlear implant systems].HNO · 2025Review
- Article
- Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear impIant provision.HNO · 2023Article
- [Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear implant provision].HNO · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Diagnostics and therapy of sudden hearing loss.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- Current audiological diagnostics.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- Hearing aids: indications, technology, adaptation, and quality control.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- [The Heidelberg CI database module : Quality control in hearing restoration with cochlear implants].HNO · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefit of hearing aids is not always directly subjectively perceivable. Therefore, objective and quantifiable speech audiometric measurements are required. Beside acoustic gain measurements and structured interviews, speech audiometry in quiet and in noise is one of the three pillars of hearing aid evaluation.The Freiburg monosyllabic test has been used for decades for hearing aid prescription and evaluation in German speaking countries. Relative and absolute targets can be individually defined for the rehabilitation of speech perception by hearing aids as assessed by the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet and at conversational levels.The general applicability of speech audiometric measurements in noise is limited. Alternative ("modern") methods and the definitions of noise situations relevant to everyday life have been discussed for years. However, the introduction of these methods into everyday use has proven difficult. On one hand, there is comparatively little practical experience; on the other, it has not yet been demonstrated what additional benefits these more complicated measurements might have for standard hearing aid evaluations and hearing aid users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27299893What 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.