ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting Age-Related Normative Hearing Levels in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- ClinClip: a Multimodal Language Pre-training model integrating EEG data for enhanced English medical listening assessment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the correlation of air-conduction thresholds between automated audiometry in a non-isolated environment and manual audiometry in participants with normal hearing and different degrees of hearing loss. Methods: Eighty-three participants aged 11-88 years old underwent automated pure-tone audiometry in a non-acoustically isolated environment, and the results were compared with those of manual pure-tone audiometry performed in a standard acoustically isolated booth, with the order of testing randomised. Six frequencies of 250, 500, 1,000, 2000, 4,000 and 8,000 Hz were tested. Results: All 166 ears were completed and 996 valid hearing threshold data were obtained, with 28 data exceeding the 95% confidence interval in the Bland-Altman plot, accounting for 2.81% of all data. The means and standard deviations of the differences for the six frequencies from 250 to 8,000 Hz were, respectively, 0.63 ± 5.31, 0.69 ± 4.50, 0.45 ± 4.99, 0.3 ± 6.2, -0.15 ± 4.8, and 0.21 ± 4.97 dB. The correlation coefficients of the two test results for normal hearing, mild, moderate, severe and above hearing loss groups were 0.95, 0.92, 0.97, and 0.96, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the automated and manual audiometry thresholds for the age groups under 40 years, 40-60 years, and 60 years above, were 0.98, 0.97 and 0.97, respectively, with all being statistically significant ( Conclusion: There was good consistency between automated pure-tone audiometry in a non-acoustically isolated environment and manual pure-tone audiometry in participants with different hearing levels and different age groups.
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.