Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31758308›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2020

Outcome parameters in speech audiometry: retrospective analysis of data and reporting quality in clinical studies.

Joseph Morgenstern, Susen Lailach, Thomas Zahnert, Marcus Neudert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Joseph MorgensternDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Universital Hospital Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Joseph.Morgenstern@uniklinikum-dresden.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6301-9575
Susen LailachDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Universital Hospital Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-4721
Thomas ZahnertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Universital Hospital Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Marcus NeudertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Universital Hospital Dresden, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3908-2328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe use of standardized outcome parameters is essential for the comparability of clinical studies. Pure-tone audiometry and speech audiometry are widely used, but there is no systematic evaluation of the outcome parameters in clinical application. Nevertheless, there is presumably a great heterogeneity especially in the field of speech audiometry. This study presents a snapshot of the current situation of documentation and usage of outcome parameters in otologic research. STUDY

designRetrospective study of existing literature analyzing common speech audiometric test material and procedure

main outcome measuresIntervention Studies from 2012 to 2016 concerning hearing ability were eligible for evaluation. Studies were analyzed with regard to study design, pathology and intervention, speech audiometric parameters, pure-tone audiometry, implementation of reporting standards and journal related data.

results279 studies were included. Over 50% of the analyzed studies lacked proper documentation. In the remaining studies, there was a broad variance concerning the documented speech audiometric parameters, most often with a fixed presentation level of 65 dB SPL.

conclusionThe lack of generally used standards for reporting hearing outcomes makes it difficult to compare results of different clinical studies. An adequate description of the methods would be a first and important step in improving reports on audiological outcomes.

Indexed as

Audiometry, Pure-ToneAudiometry, SpeechClinical Studies as TopicHearing LossHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareRetrospective StudiesHearing implantHearing lossReporting qualitySpeech audiometrySpeech discrimination testVestibular schwannoma

Identifiers

PMID31758308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.