Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35903079›Full record

ReviewSeminars in hearing2022

Audiologic Assessment.

Emily A Benson, Jessica J Messersmith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in hearing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The State of High-Resolution Imaging of the Human Inner Ear: A Look Into the Black Box.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

2 authors.

Emily A BensonDepartment of Veteran Affairs Black Hills Healthcare System, Vermillion, South Dakota.
Jessica J MessersmithCollege of Arts and Sciences, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior to the fitting of hearing aids, clinicians and patients must discuss the best treatment options for the physical and audiologic needs of the patients. To be able to confidently make these decisions, the clinician should complete a medical and audiological case history. Additionally, clinicians need accurate results from a comprehensive audiologic evaluation. The evaluation should include the following: pure-tone testing, word recognition testing, speech-in-noise testing, and loudness discomfort level measures. This article will outline the process and procedures for acquiring this information in line with the Audiology Practice Standards Organization (APSO) Guidelines for Adult Hearing Aid Fittings Standards 1 and 4. This article will also discuss how results can affect decision-making during the hearing aid selection and fitting process.

Indexed as

audiologic testinghearinghearing aids

Identifiers

PMID35903079
PMCPMC9325090

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.