ArticleHNO2019
[Determination of hearing thresholds in children using auditory brainstem responses : Influence of sedation and anaesthesia on quality and measurement time].
Article in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal Timing for Auditory Brainstem Response After Tympanostomy Tube Placement in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Retrospective Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bats experience age-related hearing loss (presbycusis).Life science alliance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA fundamental prerequisite for successful application of auditory brainstem responses (ABR) in paedaudiological diagnostics is to ensure a high quality of the measurement. This is commonly quantified by means of the residual noise. Key factors are the averaging number and the magnitude of spontaneous electroencephalogram (EEG). This is the first study to quantify the influence of different forms of sedation (anaesthesia, sedation with chloral hydrate or melatonin, natural sleep) on the individual EEG magnitude in children. MATERIALS AND
methodsABR measurements of 80 children aged between 1 month and 6 years were analysed retrospectively. Individual mean EEG amplitude was calculated from the averaging number and the residual noise. The results were analysed statistically with the type of sedation as a factor. From the mean EEG amplitudes, a theoretical recording time for a residual noise level of 35 nV was estimated.
resultsThe spontaneous EEG activity is, on average, 2.5-times larger in awake children than in naturally sleeping children and more than 4‑times larger than in sedated children. Although the EEG amplitude in intubation anaesthesia was smaller than with the other three types of sedation, this difference was not significant. The theoretical measurement time for 35 nV of residual noise was 10-times larger in awake than in sedated children.
conclusionThe large difference in spontaneous EEG activity between awake and sedated children indicates that sedation should be used for estimation of hearing thresholds on the basis of ABR. Only in rare cases is a reliable estimate of hearing thresholds likely to be obtained from ABR in awake children. Since different types of sedation do not influence the measurement time significantly, selection can be made solely on the basis of age and medical indication.
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.