ArticleTrends in hearing
Sensitivity of Methods for Diagnosing Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Cases of Exposures Including Intense Low-Frequency Noise.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Street view images help to reveal the impact of noisy environments on the survival duration of stroke patients.International journal of health geographics · 2025Article
- Nrf2 deficiency enhances oxidative stress and promotes susceptibility to tinnitus in mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Occupational epidemiological characteristics of noise-induced hearing loss and the impact of combined exposure to noise and dust on workers' hearing-a retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Exposure to intense low-frequency sounds, for example inside tanks and armoured vehicles, can lead to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) with a variable audiometric pattern, including low- and mid-frequency hearing loss. It is not known how well existing methods for diagnosing NIHL apply in such cases. Here, the audiograms of 68 military personnel (mostly veterans) who had been exposed to intense low-frequency noise (together with other types of noise) and who had low-frequency hearing loss (defined as a pure-tone average loss at 0.25, 0.5 and 1 kHz ≥20 dB) were used to assess the sensitivity of three diagnostic methods: the method of Coles, Lutman and Buffin, denoted CLB, which depends on the identification of a notch or bulge in the audiogram near 4 kHz, and two methods specifically intended for diagnosing NIHL sustained during military service, the rM-NIHL method, which depends on the identification of a notch or bulge in the audiogram near 4 kHz and/or a hearing loss at high frequencies greater than expected from age alone, and the MLP(18) method based on a multi-layer perceptron. The proportion of individuals receiving a positive diagnosis for either or both ears, which provides an approximate measure of sensitivity, was 0.40 for the CLB method, 0.79 for the rM-NIHL method and 1.0 for the MLP(18) method. It is concluded that the MLP(18) method is suitable for diagnosing NIHL sustained during military service whether or not the exposure includes intense low-frequency sounds.
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.