ArticleAudiology research2025
Precision Audiometry and Ecological Validity: Exploring the Link Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Speech Testing in CI Users.
Article in Audiology research, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAudiometric methods for hearing-impaired patients are constantly evolving as new therapeutic interventions and improved clinical standards are established. This study aimed to explore the relationship between patient-reported outcome measures in cochlear implant users and scores from audiometric test procedures in quiet and noise.
methodsIn a prospective study, 20 postlingually deafened CI users were included. Speech comprehension was measured in quiet (by Freiburg words) and in noise (by the Oldenburg sentence test), while stationary speech-simulating or temporally fluctuating noise was applied and the noise sources were varied. Subjective feedback from the patients was obtained using the HISQUI19 questionnaire.
resultsWord scores in quiet showed a significant positive correlation with the user's subjective assessment of hearing ability using the questionnaire (Spearman's R = 0.57). A greater correlation of the subjective evaluation of comprehension against fluctuating background noise as compared with stationary background noise was evident. On the other hand, the test-retest accuracy was reduced by a substantial factor in the transition from stationary to fluctuating background noise.
conclusionsBy introducing temporal fluctuations in the background noise, the ecological validity can be improved, but at the cost of a parallel decrease in the accuracy of the test procedure. Especially in the context of studies, this knowledge may help to improve the choice of the specific test method used in evaluating the relationship between ecological validity and precision audiometry.
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.