ArticleInternational journal of audiology2025
Remote self-report and speech-in-noise measures predict clinical audiometric thresholds.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and clinical application of a consonant confusion task to evaluate hearing aid benefit.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Audio-visual speech-in-noise tests for evaluating speech reception thresholds: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- The role of socio-economic and lifestyle factors in hearing function in middle-aged adults.PloS one · 2026Article
- Remote Matrix Sentence Test on Uncalibrated Consumer Devices: Test-Retest Reliability and Laboratory Agreement in Normal Hearing.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelopments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated validity and reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry.
designDIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).
resultsHigh, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.
conclusionsThis study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.
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.