Associations between the probabilities of frequency-specific hearing loss and unaided APHAB scores.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2022
   Article
2. [APHAB scores for individual assessment of the benefit of hearing aid fitting].HNO · 2017
   Article
3. Sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB).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

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as