ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2022
Efficacy of the Digit-in-Noise Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-life intrinsic capacity screening data from the ICOPE-Care program.Nature aging · 2024Article
- The Hearing Test App for Android Devices: Distinctive Features of Pure-Tone Audiometry Performed on Mobile Devices.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- The effect of second language acquisition on central auditory processing abilities and its interaction with HIV.Frontiers in language sciences · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing the Korean Version of the Digit-in-Noise Test.Journal of audiology & otology · 2023Article
- Article
- A Perspective on Auditory Wellness: What It Is, Why It Is Important, and How It Can Be Managed.Trends in hearingReview
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAlthough the digit-in-noise (DIN) test is simple and quick, little is known about its key factors. This study explored the considerable components of the DIN test through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter six electronic journal databases were screened, 14 studies were selected. For the meta-analysis, standardized mean difference was used to calculate effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe overall result of the meta-analysis showed an effect size of 2.224. In a subgroup analysis, the patient's hearing status was found to have the highest effect size, meaning that the DIN test was significantly sensitive to screen for hearing loss. In terms of the length of the presenting digits, triple digits had lower speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) than single or pairs of digits. Among the types of background noise, speech-spectrum noise provided lower SRTs than multi-talker babbling. Regarding language variance, the DIN test showed better performance in the patient's native language(s) than in other languages.
conclusionsWhen uniformly developed and well validated, the DIN test can be a universal tool for hearing screening.
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.