ArticleAudiology research2026
Early Results from a Pressureless Middle Ear Diagnostic and Its Relation to the Types of Tympanometry Results.
Article in Audiology research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pressure-Less Acoustic Immittance-Derived Middle Ear Resonance Frequency: Repeatability and Comparison with Multifrequency Tympanometry.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesIn addition to the clinical gold standard, tympanometry, several alternatives for middle ear diagnostics have evolved over the past decades. With the so-called pressureless acoustic impedance test, the Neuranix Medwave, another device, came into play.
methodsUsing a retrospective, anonymous study design, descriptive data were reported, and the correlation between Medwave's results and tympanometry types was evaluated. Also, the correlation between the patients' age and the Medwave resulting parameters was evaluated. We were able to show changes in the measurement results over time in the case of paracentesis and tube insertion.
resultsThe analyzed data show that it is possible to differentiate between tympanometry result type A and type B using the Medwave resulting parameter resonance frequency ("fR"), but not when using peak admittance ("P"). Between all other types, it was not possible to differentiate using the Medwave resulting parameters, nor fR nor P. Due to the low statistical power, this may be due to a type II error. Regarding age, a correlation was found only for the tympanometry result type A. The case over time showed a clear difference in the affected ear between the time before and after the ear surgeries, as well as the contralateral healthy ear.
conclusionsWhile this study indicates the potential use of the PLAI technology, especially as a tool in situations where traditional tympanometry is not feasible, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Further validation with larger and more balanced groups of participants is necessary to confirm these initial findings and to more clearly define the clinical utility of this technology.
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.