ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Precision and prediction matter: investigating hearing recovery measurements and prognosis in sudden sensorineural hearing loss.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is defined as 30 decibels (dB) hearing loss in 3 consecutive frequencies occurring within 72 h. Pure-tone average of four frequencies (PTA4) is commonly used to evaluate hearing levels but may not accurately reflect the recovery. We aimed to identify prognostic factors for recovery and to evaluate how recovery should be assessed, by comparing PTA4 with an individual pure-tone average (iPTA), including solely the hearing thresholds for the affected frequencies.
methodsDemographic, clinical, and audiologic factors were analyzed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models. A Bland-Altman plot was used to compare recovery measurements based on iPTA and PTA4.
resultsIn this cohort, the mean age was 57 years (range 19-91 years). Dizziness was a prominent negative predictive factor (logistic regression: iPTA OR 0.09 95% CI 0.02-0.38, for full recovery; linear regression: iPTA 14.4 dB poorer recovery). Tinnitus correlated with, on average, 4.9 dB poorer recovery (P=0.043). Each day of delayed assessment was linked to a 0.84 dB reduction in recovery (P <0.001; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98). Comparing PTA4 with iPTA, the Bland-Altman plot showed -2.4 dB mean difference with wide limits of agreement, ranging from approximately -17 to 13 dB. In cases of frequency range-specific hearing loss, hearing recovered 8.7 dB more by using iPTA than PTA4 (P=0.003).
conclusionDizziness, tinnitus, and increasing disease duration until assessment are negative prognostic factors. Compared to PTA4, iPTA better reflects actual hearing recovery, particularly in frequency range-specific hearing loss.
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.