ReviewJournal of audiology & otology2018
Update on Bone-Conduction Auditory Brainstem Responses: A Review.
Review in Journal of audiology & otology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Audio-Vestibular Evaluation of Pediatric Pseudo-Conductive Hearing Loss: Third Window Syndromes.Audiology research · 2024Review
- Gentamicin-induced sensorineural auditory loss in healthy adult horses.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021Article
- Better Understanding of Direct Bone-Conduction Measurement: Comparison with Frequency-Specific Bone-Conduction Tones and Brainstem Responses.Journal of audiology & otology · 2020Article
- Measurement of Skull Size on Computed Tomography Images for Developing a Bone Conduction Headset Suitable for the Korean Standard Head Size.Journal of audiology & otology · 2020Article
- E-ABR in Patients with Cochlear Implant: A Comparison between Patients with Malformed Cochlea and Normal Cochlea.The journal of international advanced otology · 2019Article
- Auditory Deficits in Patients With Mild and Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: A Speech Syllable Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Study.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2019Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Auditory brainstem responses (ABR) have been used as a powerful and the most common objective tool to evaluate hearing sensitivity and to diagnose the types of hearing loss and neurological disorders, through the auditory peripheral pathway to a central level of the brainstem, since 1971. Although bone-conduction (BC) ABR could be an alternative to air-conduction (AC) ABR, as the former overcomes some limitations of the latter, the majority of clinicians rarely utilize it due to a lack of knowledge and no routine test administration. This review presents the weaknesses of AC ABR that apply to all clinical population, and discusses the development of BC ABR. The optimal placements of bone oscillators to obtain favorable clinical outcomes in infants, children, and adults, and the appropriate stimuli for BC ABR are examined. While providing absolute thresholds and latencies of BC ABR based on previous studies compared to AC ABR, this review includes clinical data of infants and young children with both normal hearing in terms of maturation, and with pathology such as congenital external auditory canal atresia. We recommend the future clinical application of BC ABR for candidacy as well as for patients with BC hearing implants.
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.