SynthesisJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2024
Frequency-Following Responses in Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review aims to assess the impact of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) on various frequency-following response (FFR) parameters.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to January 2023. Studies evaluating FFRs in patients with SNHL and normal hearing controls were included.
resultsSixteen case-control studies were included, revealing variability in acquisition parameters. In the time domain, patients with SNHL exhibited prolonged latencies. The specific waves that were prolonged differed across studies. There was no consensus regarding wave amplitude in the time domain. In the frequency domain, focusing on studies that elicited FFRs with stimuli of 170 ms or longer, participants with SNHL displayed a significantly smaller fundamental frequency (F
conclusionPatients with SNHL may require more time for processing (speech) stimuli, reflected in prolonged latencies. However, the exact timing of this delay remains unclear. Additionally, when presenting longer stimuli (≥ 170 ms), patients with SNHL show difficulties tracking the F
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.