ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ambient Noise in Candidate Rooms for User-Operated Audiometry.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Automated pure-tone audiometry has been shown to provide similar hearing threshold estimates to conventional audiometry, but lower correlations were reported at high and low frequencies in audiometric tests than those of manual tests, while the correlations were better in the middle frequencies. In this paper, we used the same equipment and different test procedures for automated testing, and compared the results with manual test results. Design: One hundred subjects aged 18-36 years were randomly divided into two groups to perform air-conduction pure-tone audiometry (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 kHz) using the ascending and shortened ascending protocols built-in to the automated audiometer, respectively. Recorded testing time, the total number of responses and the subject's preference tests were compared with those of manual tests. Results: Significant difference was found at 250 Hz regarding the distribution of the absolute difference between the two automated and the manual thresholds. The testing time spend in the ascending method (9.8 ± 1.4 min, mean ± SD) was significantly longer than in the shorted ascending method (5.8 ± 0.9 min). The total numbers of responses of the ascending method (90.5 ± 10.8 times) and shorted ascending method (62.0 ± 11.4 times) were significantly different. Finally, no significant difference was found in preferences between automated and manual procedures. Conclusion: The shorted ascending method can save lots of testing time. The difference between the two automated thresholds at 250 Hz is caused by the different test procedures, and the difference at 8,000 Hz between the automated test and the manual test can be due to the transducer types and allowable differences in calibration.
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.