Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29915454›Full record

ReviewSeminars in hearing2018

Effectiveness of Auditory Measures for Detecting Hidden Hearing Loss and/or Cochlear Synaptopathy: A Systematic Review.

Christi M Barbee, Jessica A James, Jin Hyung Park, Emily M Smith, Carole E Johnson, Shari Clifton, Jeffrey L Danhauer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in hearing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of behavioral audiological tests in identifying cochlear synaptopathy: a systematic review.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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Auditory processing abilities in daily motorbike riders.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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Beyond standard audiometry: Auditory dysfunction and steroid treatment outcomes in young adults following acoustic trauma.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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cochlear Synaptopathy Evaluation With Electrocochleography in Patients With Hearing Difficulty in Noise Despite Normal Hearing Levels.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Development of an audiological assessment and diagnostic model for high occupational noise exposure.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 · 2023
    Article
  13. Noise-induced hearing disorders: Clinical and investigational tools.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Christi M BarbeeHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Jessica A JamesHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Jin Hyung ParkHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Emily M SmithHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Carole E JohnsonHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Shari CliftonHearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Jeffrey L DanhauerDepartment of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard audiometric evaluations are not sensitive enough to identify hidden hearing loss (HHL) and/or cochlear synaptopathy (CS). Patients with either of these conditions frequently present with difficulty understanding speech in noise or other complaints such as tinnitus. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify articles in peer-reviewed journals that assessed the sensitivity of audiologic measures for detecting HHL and/or CS, and which showed potential for use in a clinical test battery for these disorders. A reference librarian submitted specific boolean terminology to MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The authors used a consensus approach with specially designed score sheets for the selection of titles, abstracts, and then articles for inclusion in the systematic review and for quality assessment. Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review. Seven articles involved humans; seven involved animals, and one study used both humans and animals. Results showed that pure-tone audiometry to 20 kHz, otoacoustic emissions, electrocochleography, auditory brainstem response (ABR), electrophysiological tests, speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion, interviews, and self-report measures have been used to assess HHL and/or CS. For HHL, ultra-high-frequency audiometry may help identify persons with sensory hair cell loss that does not show up on standard audiograms. Promising nonbehavioral measures for CS included ABR wave I amplitude, the summating potential-to-action potential ratio, and speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion. Self-report questionnaires also may help identify auditory dysfunction in persons with normal hearing.

Indexed as

assessmentcochlear synaptopathyhidden hearing lossKing–Kopetzky syndrome

Identifiers

PMID29915454
PMCPMC6003814

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.