ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2022
Measurement of Loudness Discomfort Levels as a Test for Hyperacusis: Test-Retest Reliability and Its Clinical Value.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tinnitus: A Dimensionally Segregated, yet Perceptually Integrated Heterogeneous Disorder.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Trial
- Multidimensional Effects of Hyperacusis: A Study on Tinnitus, Anxiety, Cognitive Function, Sleep, and Quality of Life.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
- Article
- What Do Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Responses Tell Us About Tinnitus?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Review
- Visual disgust constricts pupils in response to misophonic movies.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Modified cognitive behavioral therapy approach reduces loudness discomfort levels for an autistic child with hyperacusis: case report.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to investigate the test-retest reliability of measurements of loudness discomfort levels (LDLs), to suggest cut-off values for diagnosing patients with hyperacusis, and to evaluate the clinical value of-LDL measurements as a test for monitoring hyperacusis.
methodsFor the test-retest reliability of LDL measurements (study 1), a total of 68 patients who sought consultations at our clinic were subcategorized into four groups: patients with tinnitus (group 1), tinnitus and hearing loss (group 2), hyperacusis (group 3), and normal controls (group 4). Inter-hour and inter-day test-retest reliability values using different stimuli were investigated. For study 2, the clinical value of LDL measurements using pure tone stimuli was analyzed by comparing changes after sound generator use in patients with hyperacusis.
resultsIn study 1, the group 3 patients showed significantly lower LDLs than the other groups. High test-retest reliability of LDL tests was demonstrated, regardless of the type of stimulus used. The cut-off values for screening patients with hyperacusis were 90 dB HL using pure tone stimuli and 62 dB HL using white-band noise stimuli. In study 2, significantly increased LDLs were correlated with improved symptoms and improved scores on tinnitus questionnaires after sound generator use, indicating that LDL measurement is a reliable test for monitoring hyperacusis during an intervention.
conclusionLDL measurement is a reliable diagnostic tool to reflect the condition of hyperacusis, especially during the course of treatment.
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.