ArticleHNO2019
[Everyday relevance of APHAB questions : Influence on answer frequency].
Article in HNO, 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.
- [Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire measures subjective hearing impairment in different situations. Recently, a survey demonstrated that some APHAB questions were answered more rarely than others. This study aims to evaluate the everyday relevance of each APHAB question and investigate whether this relevance for daily life influences answer frequency.
methodsBetween July 2016 and November 2017, 517 hearing impaired patients from 11 ENT practices in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, were evaluated using the APHAB. In parallel, the everyday relevance of each APHAB question for the subjects was assessed on a four-step scale (often/sometimes/rarely/never). The answers were listed in a cross table and statistically analyzed.
resultsThe average age of all subjects was 67.4 years (±14.0 years); 45.3% were female and 54.7% were male. One APHAB question (no. 21) was answered noticeably less often than the others. Overall, five types of distribution for the everyday relevance of APHAB questions could be determined. Using the χ
conclusionNo correlation between everyday relevance and answer frequency was detected. However, the five types of distribution could be used for an individual interpretation of single APHAB answers. In the future, a possible influence of everyday relevance on ranking within a specific APHAB answer should be investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31143975What 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.