ArticleCureus2024
Approach to Sudden Hearing Loss Among Primary Care Physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Management of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss among General Practitioners in the United Kingdom: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA medical emergency known as sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) affects the ears suddenly, has a considerable probability of negative cognitive and functional outcomes, and can influence the patient's quality of life. Primary care physicians play a crucial role in diagnosing SSNHL and initiating prompt and efficient management since they are the ones who would likely encounter it initially. This study aims to evaluate the present knowledge, diagnostic, and management perspective of SSNHL among primary care physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
methodsA self-generated questionnaire with 17 questions was developed, and a link to the online survey was delivered to primary care physicians (PHPs) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, concerning the management of SSNHL.
resultsThe knowledge level regarding SSNHL was evaluated, in which 21 (25%) of the participants had a low knowledge level, 34 (40.5%) had moderate knowledge, and 29 (34.5%) had a high knowledge level. Among 84 participants, 20 (23.8%) were confident in their ability to administer and understand the findings of tuning fork tests (TFT) to differentiate between sensorineural hearing loss and conductive hearing loss, whereas 64 (76.2%) were unsure about it. In addition, to distinguish between sensorineural hearing loss and conductive hearing loss, 62 (73.8%) participants were confident, and 22 (26.2%) participants were skeptical about their ability to interpret a formal audiogram.
conclusionConsidering SSNHL as a medical emergency, in our survey, many family doctors would make proper referral and treatment decisions. However, TFTs were underutilized for guiding management decisions compared to other ways to distinguish between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss.
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.