ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
Validation of a questionnaire to identify noise-induced hearing loss among drivers.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the validity of a questionnaire (consisting of 10 items/questions) to identify hearing loss (HL) among three-wheeler tempo and noncommercial car drivers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study conducted in an urban area of Lucknow city. Three-wheeler tempo drivers and noncommercial car drivers were assessed for HL by audiometry. A total of 300 subjects, who fulfilled the study criteria, were selected for the interview and health assessment. The pure tone audiometry was conducted after >12 hours of the last noise exposure to avoid temporary threshold shift.
resultsThe percentage of respondents aged between 31 and 40 years was 36%. The highest affirmative response item was "Do you have trouble hearing in noisy background?" constituting 68% and the lowest affirmative response item was "Do you have trouble understanding the speech of women and children?" constituting 33.7%. Kappa values showed that there was significantly (<0.05) mild agreement between most of the items and the gold standard for mid and high-frequency HL. The area under the curve for low, mid, and high frequency HL was 0.76% (95% CI = 0.68-0.84), 0.69 (95% CI = 0.73-0.75), and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.62-0.73), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were reasonable for all the definition of HL at different cutoff scores.
conclusionA self-reported questionnaire-based approach may be used for the assessment of HL especially when audiometry is not feasible.
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.