ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2025
Test-Retest Reliability and Variability Over Time for Repeated Audiometric Assessment in Individuals With Down Syndrome.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2025. 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.
- The Efficacy of Acupuncture and Bee Venom Injections in Improving Hearing in a Patient with Idiopathic Conductive Hearing Loss: a case report.Journal of pharmacopuncture · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh rates of hearing loss are observed for individuals with Down syndrome, and regular hearing assessment is recommended for children and adults. Unknown variability of threshold estimates for repeated auditory assessments for individuals with diverse intellectual abilities, such as individuals with Down syndrome, confounds the ability to determine true threshold changes between assessments. This study evaluated variability of pure-tone thresholds measured within and across test sessions for individuals with Down syndrome.
methodParticipants included 27 individuals with Down syndrome, ages 5.1-46.5 years (average = 22.7,
resultsIntrasession variability was ≤ 10 dB for 94.3%-100% of thresholds for participants with Down syndrome, with similar variability observed for neurotypical participants. Threshold differences were ≤ 10 dB for 63.2%-85% of responses from audiograms separated by an average of 5.8 months and 37.5%-62.5% of responses separated by an average of 3.4 years.
conclusionsIntrasession variability for participants with Down syndrome aligns with current clinical standards accepting variability of ≤ 10 dB between repeated threshold estimates. Differences in repeated audiometric thresholds greater than 10 dB likely reflect true changes in hearing sensitivity. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30052885.
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.