ArticleLaryngo- rhino- otologie2024
[The adaptive use of the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test in noise with a reduced number of test lists].
Article in Laryngo- rhino- otologie, 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.
- [In adaptive measurement: Shortened Freiburg monosyllabic test vs. Oldenburg sentence test in noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the different calibration and masking of the noise, the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test in noise (aFBE-S) and the Oldenburg sentence test in noise (OLSA-S) were shown to be comparable with respect to the accuracy of both tests in a previous study. However, the time requirement of the aFBE-S was significantly greater than that of the OLSA-S due to the adaptive measurement method. The purpose of this study is to theoretically determine whether the aFBE-S can be used with fewer test lists, given the low scatter of results, and to compare the results with those of the OLSA-S.
methodsUsing the results of 40 otologically healthy subjects who had already been tested in randomized order with the OLSA-S and aFBE-S, the mean difference of the 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) of the signal-to-noise ratio for 50% speech understanding (S/N50) of the aFBE-S was calculated for three, four, and five test lists instead of 7.5. In addition, the time required for the reduced number of test lists was determined and the results were examined in comparison with those of the OLSA-S.
resultsIn each case, no significant difference between the difference mean of the 95 %-CI of the S/N50 of the original aFBE-S, the aFBE-S shortened to 3, 4, or 5 test lists and the OLSA-S could be found. The time required for the aFBE-S with a reduced number of test lists was significantly less than for the OLSA-S in each case.
conclusionThe aFBE-S is not inferior with a reduced number of test lists in comparison to the OLSA-S. This would allow to use the shortened aFBE-S theoretically.
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.