ReviewSeminars in hearing2022
Neuroaudiological Considerations for the Auditory Brainstem Response and Middle Latency Response Revisited: Back to the Future.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The auditory brainstem response (ABR) and middle latency response (MLR) are two sets of evoked potentials that have made major contributions to the field of diagnostic audiology. Many of these contributions were guided by clinical research audiologists. Though many of these auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) are still being used diagnostically by audiologists, there has been a steep decline in their popularity both clinically and in the research laboratory. This is indeed most unfortunate because these AEPs could and should be advancing our field and benefitting many patients. In this article, some critical research is overviewed that addresses some of the reasons why these AEPs (ABR and MLR) are not being utilized as frequently as they should be for neuroauditory assessments. Reflecting on our past when ABR and MLR were more commonly used can serve as a model for our future. Multiple applications and the diagnostic value of these AEPs are presented in an effort to convince audiologists that these electrophysiologic procedures should be revisited and reapplied in the clinic and research settings. It is argued that the dwindling use of ABR and MLR (and AEPs in general) in the field of audiology is not only remarkably premature but also lacks good scientific grounding. While on the other hand, if applied clinically, the value of these AEPs is both substantial and promising.
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.