Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31437206›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Otitis media with effusion in children: Cross-frequency correlation in pure tone audiometry.

Ann Hiu Ching Chow, Ting Cai, Bradley McPherson, Feng Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ann Hiu Ching ChowDivision of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Ting CaiDivision of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Bradley McPhersonDivision of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7982-1033
Feng YangDepartment of Speech Therapy, Shenzhen Children's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0106-2831
University of Hong Kong · HKShenzhen Children's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Audiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleOtitis Media with EffusionPractice Guidelines as TopicRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31437206
PMCPMC6705822
OpenAlexW2923393121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.