Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37190676›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023

Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Students Aged Between 8 and 12 years.

Camila Colussi Madruga-Rimoli, Milaine Dominici Sanfins, Piotr Henryk Skarżyński, Thalita Ubiali, Magdalena Beata Skarżyńska, Maria Francisca Colella Dos Santos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of Prematurity on Auditory Processing in Children.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2023
    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

6 authors.

Camila Colussi Madruga-RimoliFaculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Milaine Dominici SanfinsPostgraduate Program in Audiology, Albert Einstein Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3647-3999
Piotr Henryk SkarżyńskiDepartment of Teleaudiology and Screening, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4978-1915
Thalita UbialiFaculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Magdalena Beata SkarżyńskaDepartment of Otolaryngology, Institute of Sensory Organs, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-3340-1698
Maria Francisca Colella Dos SantosFaculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Learning to read and write depends on the effective functioning of various sensory systems, including the auditory system. Auditory information processing involves behavioral and electrophysiological processes. Electrophysiological procedures are used to investigate activity in the auditory pathway in response to sound stimuli, and the associated cortical activity in discrimination, integration, and attention. The study evaluated electrophysiological testing for an auditory processing disorder and reading performance in 54 school students aged between 8 and 12 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved 54 public school students aged between 8 and 12 years, who were divided into a study group and control group. All children underwent basic audiological assessment, rating of reading and writing ability, non-verbal intelligence, auditory brainstem response, long-latency auditory-evoked potentials (LLAEP), frequency following responses (FFR), and auditory training (AT). RESULTS The basic audiological evaluation showed a statistically significant difference between groups only for the frequency of 6 kHz. The LLAEP response had a statistically significant difference between groups for N1 latency, P300 latency, and amplitude. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference between pre-AT and post-AT to LLAEP for latencies of P2, N2, and P300 and amplitudes of N2 and P300, and to FFR for latency of wave C. CONCLUSIONS This study showed that electrophysiological tests are sensitive tools for identifying deficits in the auditory pathway. Moreover, latency measures can detect improvements from an auditory training program. In this way, an auditory intervention program might help children with reading and writing difficulties.

Indexed as

Auditory Perceptual DisordersAcoustic StimulationChildEvoked Potentials, AuditoryEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemHumansReadingStudents

Identifiers

PMID37190676
PMCPMC10199651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.