Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28039514›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2017

Variability of word discrimination scores in clinical practice and consequences on their sensitivity to hearing loss.

Annie Moulin, André Bernard, Laurent Tordella, Judith Vergne, Annie Gisbert, Christian Martin, Céline Richard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Annie MoulinInserm U1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, Brain Dynamics and Cognition Team, University of Lyon, 69000, Lyon, France. annie.moulin@cnrs.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5883-2112
André BernardOtorhinolaryngology Department, Hôpital Nord, CHU of St Etienne, 42055, St Etienne Cedex, France.
Laurent TordellaCHU of St Etienne, 42055, St Etienne Cedex, France.
Judith VergneInserm U1028, CNRS UMR 5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, Brain Dynamics and Cognition Team, University of Lyon, 69000, Lyon, France.
Annie GisbertOtorhinolaryngology Department, Hôpital Nord, CHU of St Etienne, 42055, St Etienne Cedex, France.
Christian MartinOtorhinolaryngology Department, Hôpital Nord, CHU of St Etienne, 42055, St Etienne Cedex, France.
Céline RichardOtorhinolaryngology Department, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Speech perception scores are widely used to assess patient's functional hearing, yet most linguistic material used in these audiometric tests dates to before the availability of large computerized linguistic databases. In an ENT clinic population of 120 patients with median hearing loss of 43-dB HL, we quantified the variability and the sensitivity of speech perception scores to hearing loss, measured using disyllabic word lists, as a function of both the number of ten-word lists and type of scoring used (word, syllables or phonemes). The mean word recognition scores varied significantly across lists from 54 to 68%. The median of the variability of the word recognition score ranged from 30% for one ten-word list down to 20% for three ten-word lists. Syllabic and phonemic scores showed much less variability with standard deviations decreasing by 1.15 with the use of syllabic scores and by 1.45 with phonemic scores. The sensitivity of each list to hearing loss and distortions varied significantly. There was an increase in the minimum effect size that could be seen for syllabic scores compared to word scores, with no significant further improvement with phonemic scores. The use of at least two ten-word lists, quoted in syllables rather than in whole words, contributed to a large decrease in variability and an increase in sensitivity to hearing loss. However, those results emphasize the need of using updated linguistic material for clinical speech score assessments.

Indexed as

Hearing LossLinguisticsResearch DesignSpeech Discrimination TestsAdultComputer-Aided DesignFemaleHumansInventionsMaleMiddle AgedSpeech PerceptionDisyllabic word listsEffect sizeHearing lossSpeech recognition scores

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.