ReviewSeminars in hearing2023
The Rise and Fall of Aural Acoustic Immittance Assessment Tools.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of probiotic lozenges on improvement in tympanometric classification within 12 weeks in children aged 3-6 years with adenoid hypertrophy and otitis media with effusion undergoing non-surgical management: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Trial
- Early Results from a Pressureless Middle Ear Diagnostic and Its Relation to the Types of Tympanometry Results.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Tinnitus Stepped-Care: A Model for Standardizing Clinical Services for Tinnitus.Seminars in hearing · 2024Review
- Survey of Wideband Acoustic Immittance Use by Clinical Audiologists.American journal of audiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical assessment of middle ear function has undergone multiple transformations and developments since the first acoustic impedance measurements were made in human ears nearly a century ago. The decades following the development of the first acoustic impedance bridge by Metz in 1946 witnessed a series of technological advancements leading to the widespread use of single-frequency admittance tympanometry in the 1960s. In the 1970s, multi-frequency and multi-component tympanometry (MFT) emerged for clinical use, allowing for a better understanding of the middle ear acoustic-mechanical response at frequencies between 200 and 2,000 Hz. MFT has not gained widespread clinical adoption despite its advantages over single-frequency tympanometry. More recent technological developments enabled assessment for frequencies greater than 2,000 Hz, leading to the advent of wideband acoustic immittance measures with capabilities for comprehensive assessment of middle ear acoustic mechanics, and a great potential for use of acoustic immittance testing in various diagnostic practices. This article reviews important historical markers in the development and operation of middle ear assessment tools and analysis methods. Technical and clinical factors underlying the emergence and adoption of different acoustic immittance tests as a standard of clinical practice are described. In addition, we discuss the likelihood for widespread adoption of wideband acoustic immittance and wideband tympanometry in future clinical practice.
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.