ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
The relationship between round window and ear canal Cochlear microphonic.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The relationship between round window and ear canal Cochlear microphonic.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothesis: Cochlear microphonic recorded at ear canal (CM-EC) can be a substitute for the one recorded at round window (CM-RW). Background: Almost all clinics do not measure tone-burst evoked CM due to technical difficulty although it can provide more information than click evoked CM. Moreover, clinicians like the CM-EC more than that measured at CM-RW because CM-EC is non-invasive. There is difference between CM-RW and CM-EC, for example, CM-EC is less prominent than CM-RW, therefore, studying tone-burst evoked CM-EC and its relationship with CM-RW are highly significant and can promote the clinical application of CM-EC. Method: Nine guinea pigs were randomly allocated into three groups, group 1 was not exposed to noise, called normal control. group 2 and group 3 were exposed to the low- (0.5-2 kHz) and high-frequency band-noise (6-8 kHz) at 120 dB SPL for 1 h, respectively. It was difficulty to record low-frequency CM due to severe environmental interruption, in current study the recording technology of tone-burst evoked CM was optimized so that tone-burst evoked CM was measured across full speech frequency (0.5-8 kHz) in the presence of normal hearing and noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Results: CM-RW and CM-EC were successfully recorded across speech frequency. Significant reduction in CM amplitude was observed at 0.5 and 2 kHz in group 2, at 6 and 8 kHz in group 3 as compared to group 1, Conclusion: CM-EC is a useful objective test for evaluation of hearing function; the result of current study supports the clinical application of non-invasive CM-EC.
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.