Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40007331›Full record

ArticleScience progress

Accuracy and time efficiency of an automated commercial audiometer in the evaluation of hearing in quiet and noisy environments.

Ying Yi, Xian-Ren Wang, Qin Xiong, Guan-Xia Xiong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ying YiOtorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xian-Ren WangOtorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qin XiongOtorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Guan-Xia XiongOtorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8058-3634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn this study, we sought to validate the effectiveness of an automated audiometry system in quiet (AA) and noisy environments (AA-N) by comparing the air pure-tone thresholds obtained by AA to those obtained by traditional manual audiometry (MA).

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 150 participants with or without hearing loss were tested (age: 11-84 years; female: 57.3%). Air conduction thresholds were assessed by MA, AA, and AA-N in a quiet or noisy sound booth.

resultsIn participants without hearing loss, 94.5% and 96% of the threshold comparisons differed between MA versus AA and AA versus AA-N within 10 dB HL or less. In participants with hearing loss, there was no statistically significant difference between the three testing conditions at any frequency (

conclusionsAutomatic audiometry can accurately estimate hearing thresholds and screen for hearing loss even in noisy environments. Nevertheless, the algorithm must be corrected when patients experience tinnitus.

Indexed as

AudiometryAudiometry, Pure-ToneHearingHearing LossNoiseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAuditory ThresholdAutomationChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleAutomated audiometrydiagnosticsmanual audiometrynoisetinnitus

Identifiers

PMID40007331
PMCPMC11863217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.