ArticleNoise & health
Study on the Effectiveness of Combining Different Hearing Test Techniques in Aiding the Diagnosis of NIHL Using a Cross-sectional Survey.
Article in Noise & health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveConventional audiometry (CA) has limitations in detecting early noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). This study aims to assess the effectiveness of combining different hearing test techniques in aiding the diagnosis of NIHL by CA.
methodsThis cross-sectional study enrolled 138 NIHL patients (diagnosed by CA) and 138 matched controls. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the diagnostic performance of each supplementary diagnostic technique (e.g., extended high-frequency audiometry [EHF], distortion product otoacoustic emissions [DPOAE], the Dichotic Digits Test [DDT], or Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test [BKB-SIN]). A parsimonious model was developed and validated. ROC curves were used to assess the improvement in CA's diagnostic performance with the parsimonious model. The odds ratio (OR) for the parsimonious model was calculated among noise-exposed groups with normal CA.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in four audiological measures (EHF, DPOAE, DDT, and BKB-SIN) between case and control groups ( P < 0.05). ROC analysis revealed distinct diagnostic performance among the four tests ( P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression identified EHF, DPOAE, and DDT as independent diagnostic factors ( P < 0.01). The parsimonious model (EHF+DPOAE+DDT) demonstrated a comparable goodness-of-fit to the full model (EHF+DPOAE+BKB-SIN+DDT) ( P > 0.05), while it significantly outperformed any single test alone ( P < 0.01). Bootstrap resampling validated its robust stability across subgroups (age, sex, and work experience). The Delong test showed improved diagnostic efficacy in the CA + parsimonious model group (AUC increased by 0.09, P < 0.01) and in CA-defined severity groups (AUC: 0.94-0.96). The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that, among noise-exposed workers with normal CA, ORs of relevant indicators from the parsimonious model for early NIHL were 1.31 [95% Confidence Intervalat (CI): 1.21-1.47, P < 0.01].
conclusionA parsimonious combination of EHF, DPOAE, and DDT is effective for aiding CA in diagnosing early NIHL. More studies are needed for further validation.
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.