ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2023
Bone Conduction Threshold Measurements in Patients with Bone Conduction Devices: A Comparison of Available Methods.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Audiometric Parameters for Assistive Hearing Technology for Adults and Children With Tympanic Membrane Perforation.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe semi-implantable bone conduction devices connect the skull to the hearing device by means of an implant. This implant affords us 3 possible methods for conducting bone conduction evaluation, which may produce a different result for the same patient, and comparisons of results from different centers may therefore be interpreted incorrectly. Thus, the authors attempt to quantify the audiometric differences between the obtained auditory results and to check whether the results of standard pure tone audiometry could be replaced with the results obtained by alternative measurement methods.
methodsMeasurements were conducted in a group of 53 adult patients implanted with bone conduction devices in 3 modes: bone conduction-direct, when the bone conduction device itself is used to assess the audiometric threshold; bone conduction-pure tone audiometry with audiometric oscillator placed over mastoid aside of an implant; and bone conduction-indirect with oscillator placed on an implant.
resultsThe analysis revealed differences between obtained results, which can reach up to 21.48 dB with a mean of 10 dB across all frequencies. The lowest values, regardless of the type of implant connection ("magnetic"; "snap"), were recorded for bone conduction-indirect mode whereas the highest mean all-frequency thresholds were recorded in the mode defined as bone conduction-direct.
conclusionThe method that provides the most comparable thresholds is when the oscillator is positioned on the mastoid, aside from an implant. It should be the method of choice for any hearing evaluation in patients fitted with bone conduction devices, because of standardized equipment and the availability of preoperative data obtained with the same method.
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.