Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519714›Full record

ArticleHNO2019

[The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise : Development of a procedure and comparison of the results with the Oldenburg sentence test].

T Memmeler, R Schönweiler, B Wollenberg, J Löhler

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Age standardization and time-of-day performance for the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA): results from the population-based Gutenberg Health Study.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 · 2024
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Hearing Impairment in Old Age.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Review
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

4 authors.

T MemmelerCampus Lübeck, Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
R SchönweilerCampus Lübeck, HNO-Klinik, Sektion für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
B WollenbergCampus Lübeck, Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
J LöhlerCampus Lübeck, Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland. loehler@hno-aerzte.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-5731

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhereas sentence tests are commonly performed using an adaptive procedure, this method has not yet been transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test, the most important word test. When using different procedures, a comparison of results between sentence and word tests is not possible. Therefore, an adaptive procedure which has proven itself in sentence tests was transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise. The results of the new procedure were compared to the standard of sentence tests, i.e., the Oldenburg sentence test.

methodsThe adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test and the Oldenburg sentence test were applied in 40 otologically normal subjects in a randomized order. Results were analyzed with respect to time requirements, possible gender differences, the influence of test order, and correlation of test results.

resultsThe time required for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test was significantly higher than for the Oldenburg sentence test. No significant impact of gender or test order could be shown. The mean signal-to-noise ratio for 50% speech discrimination of the Oldenburg sentence test was significantly smaller than for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test. No correlation could be shown between the results of the two tests

conclusionThe Freiburg monosyllabic test can not only be used for quantifying discrimination loss in percentage terms, but also to measure the 50% speech recognition threshold with an adaptive algorithm. However, the procedure of the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test is more time consuming than that of the Oldenburg sentence test. Concerning a possible missing correlation between the results for 50% speech discrimination, further studies with hearing-impaired persons are needed.

Indexed as

NoiseSpeech PerceptionHearing LossHumansLanguageRandom AllocationReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpeech Discrimination TestsAdaptive procedureFreiburg monosyllabic speech testOldenburg sentence testSpeech audiometrySpeech discrimination test

Identifiers

PMID30519714

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.