ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2024
Reference Data for a Quick Speech-in-Noise Hearing Test in the French Language.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Auditory Performance in Noise of Bone-Anchored Hearing System in Patients With Single Side Sensorineural Deafness.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDifficulty in understanding speech in noise is the most common complaint of people with hearing impairment. Thus, there is a need for tests of speech-in-noise ability in clinical settings, which have to be evaluated for each language. Here, a reference dataset is presented for a quick speech-in-noise test in the French language (Vocale Rapide dans le Bruit, VRB; Leclercq, Renard, & Vincent, 2018).
methodsA large cohort (N = 641) was tested in a nationwide multicentric study. The cohort comprised normal-hearing individuals and individuals with a broad range of symmetrical hearing losses. Short everyday sentences embedded in babble noise were presented over a spatial array of loudspeakers. Speech level was kept constant, while noise level was progressively increased over a range of signal-to-noise ratios. The signal-to-noise ratio for which 50% of keywords could be correctly reported (speech reception threshold, SRT) was derived from psychometric functions. Other audiometric measures were collected for the cohort, such as audiograms and speech-in-quiet performance.
resultsThe VRB test was both sensitive and reliable, as shown by the steep slope of the psychometric functions and by the high test-retest consistency across sentence lists. Correlation analyses showed that pure tone averages derived from the audiograms explained 74% of the SRT variance over the whole cohort, but only 29% for individuals with clinically normal audiograms. SRTs were then compared to recent guidelines from the French Society of Audiology [Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2022;139(1):21-7]. Among individuals who would not have qualified for hearing aid prescription based on their audiogram or speech intelligibility in quiet, 18.4% were now eligible as they displayed SRTs in noise impaired by 3 dB or more. For individuals with borderline audiograms, between 20 dB HL and 30 dB HL, the prevalence of impaired SRTs increased to 71.4%. Finally, even though five lists are recommended for clinical use, a minute-long screening using only one VRB list detected 98.6% of impaired SRTs.
conclusionThe reference data suggest that VRB testing can be used to identify individuals with speech-in-noise impairment.
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.