ArticleJornal de pediatria
Central auditory system assessment in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis: electrophysiology and central auditory processing.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the central auditory system of children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis through behavioral assessment of central auditory processing and electrophysiological tests to investigate short and long-latency auditory potentials, comparing them with the results obtained in the control group.
methods117 from 7 to 21 years old patients were evaluated, 57 of them with cystic fibrosis and 60 of the control group, using behavioral evaluation of central auditory processing, auditory brainstem response and long latency auditory evoked potential. The comparison of the research groups was performed using ANOVA for Auditory Brain Response and P300 responses and Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests for Central Auditory Processing responses.
resultsA statistically significant difference was found in the results of the GIN test between the groups and in the auditory brainstem response latency responses in waves I and V in the comparison between the groups with higher latencies in the study group. A difference was also found between latencies in the interpeak intervals I-III and III-V. The long latency auditory evoked potential analysis shows a statistically significant difference in the latency of the P300 potential, with higher latencies in the study group.
conclusionCystic fibrosis participants presented worse performance in the gaps-in-noise test compared to the control group in the evaluation of central auditory processing, which indicates impairment of temporal resolution auditory ability. They also showed increased latency in I and V waves of auditory brainstem response, as well as an increase P300 latency in long latency auditory evoked potential.
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.