ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating Prediction Models with Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly in Chronic Otitis Media Patients.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective, cross-sectional study aimed to assess the functional hearing capacity of individuals with Chronic Otitis Media (COM) using prediction modeling techniques and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) questionnaire. This study investigated the potential of predictive models to identify hearing levels in patients with COM.
methodsWe comprehensively examined 289 individuals diagnosed with COM, of whom 136 reported tinnitus and 143 did not. This study involved a detailed analysis of various patient characteristics and HHIE questionnaire results. Logistic and Random Forest models were employed and compared based on key performance metrics.
resultsThe logistic model demonstrated a slightly higher accuracy (73.56%), area under the curve (AUC; 0.73), Kappa value (0.45), and F1 score (0.78) than the Random Forest model. These findings suggest the superior predictive performance of the logistic model in identifying hearing levels in patients with COM.
conclusionsAlthough the AUC for the logistic regression did not meet the benchmark, this study highlights the potential for enhanced reliability and improved performance metrics using a larger dataset. The integration of prediction modeling techniques and the HHIE questionnaire shows promise for achieving greater diagnostic accuracy and refining intervention strategies for individuals with COM.
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.