ArticleInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Assessment of Two Types of Headphones Used in a Tablet-Based Automated Hearing Screening Method in Different Noise Conditions.
Article in International archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of two types of supra-aural headphones in both silence and noise in automated hearing screening in adults via tablet computers. Methods: Basic audiological assessments and audiometry screenings via tablet were conducted in silence and noise in 35 participants. The hearing screening application assesses frequencies of 1, 2, and 4 kHz (20 dBHL) and 0.5 kHz (30 dBHL) in each ear separately. Two different headphones were tested: TDH 39 (Telephonics Corporation) and Sennheiser HD 280 PRO (Sennheiser) (with passive noise cancellation)-in silence, white noise, and cafeteria noise, emitted in a free field. The screening results were compared with the gold standard (audiometry). Results: The results of the 35 participants with Sennheiser HD 280 PRO were compatible with the gold standard in the 3 situations. With TDH 39, the results of 33 individuals in silence and 34 in white noise were compatible with the gold standard. Both headphones, in automated screening in silence and noise, had 100% sensitivity, more than 93% specificity, and more than 94% accuracy. Conclusion: Both headphones performed well in the tablet automated hearing screening in the three situations. The HD 280 PRO performed better in silence and noise regarding specificity and accuracy. In cafeteria noise, there was no difference between the two headphones.
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.