ArticlePloS one2019
Otitis media with effusion in children: Cross-frequency correlation in pure tone audiometry.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- An OMOP-CDM based pharmacovigilance data-processing pipeline (PDP) providing active surveillance for ADR signal detection from real-world data sources.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of Mesotympanum Injection and Posterior Auricular Injection in Sudden Hearing Loss of Diabetes Patients.BioMed research international · 2022Trial
- A measurement comparability study to support instrument harmonization in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Preschool Screening in Upper Austria for Early Detection of Hearing Loss: Prevalence, Follow-Up, and Outcomes of the Last Eight Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- CHARACTERISTICS OF HEARING RECOVERY IN CHILDREN WITH CHRONIC OTITIS MEDIA WITH EFFUSION AFTER VENTILATION TUBE INSERTION.Acta clinica Croatica · 2023Article
- The Association Between Midlife Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Hearing Loss in Late Life in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- Association of Cigarette Smoking Patterns Over 30 Years With Audiometric Hearing Impairment and Speech-in-Noise Perception: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Improving the Differential Diagnosis of Otitis Media With Effusion Using Wideband Acoustic Immittance.Ear and hearingArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different guidelines are adopted in clinics and countries to assess pure tone hearing sensitivity in children with otitis media with effusion (OME). Some guidelines specify a broad range of audiometric frequencies that must be tested and from which average thresholds determined, while others leave test frequencies unspecified. For guidelines that suggest specific frequencies there are various pure tone frequencies and frequency ranges given. The present study investigated whether (1) a full range of audiometric frequencies is required to evaluate hearing loss caused by OME in children, or if neighboring frequencies provide essentially the same threshold information, and (2) if different combinations of test frequency pure tone averaging calculations may affect decision criteria for surgical treatment. In a retrospective cohort study, right and left ear air conduction pure tone threshold data were obtained, from 125 Hz to 8 kHz, for 96 children with OME aged 4 to 12 years. Paired t-tests, correlation tests (Pearson's r, Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation) and absolute differences were used to examine the relationships among pure tone audiometric (PTA) frequencies for all ears with hearing loss. 168 ears were found to have OME-related hearing loss. Only the 125 Hz-250 Hz comparison showed no statistically significant difference between neighboring thresholds. However, only the 4 kHz and 8 kHz comparison showed a clinically significant mean difference of ≥ 10 dB. When viewing individual differences, comparison between 250 Hz and 500 Hz, 125 Hz and 500 Hz, and 4 kHz and 8 kHz, showed a large number of ears with clinically significant differences between test frequencies. Comparisons among low frequency 3 PTA average (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz), high frequency 3 PTA average (1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz), and 4 frequency PTA average (500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz) showed no statistically significant differences, with very strong correlations for all comparisons. In addition, for all the combinations of PTA averages, no clinically significant differences were found for the various comparisons or among individual results. Clinically, testing hearing sensitivity in the 125 Hz to 8 kHz range is worthwhile in evaluating hearing sensitivity in children with OME due to large individual variability across audiometric frequencies. However, frequencies tested for criterion averages for surgical treatments of children with OME may be restricted to 3 frequency PTA averages, either an average of 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz or an average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz, as no clinically significant differences were found using these or a 4 frequency averaging technique. For research purposes, 250 Hz can proxy for hearing thresholds at 125 Hz; and the low frequency 3 PTA average, high frequency 3 PTA average and 4 frequency PTA average may be used interchangeably, as no statistically significant differences were found among these measures.
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.