ArticleOtology & neurotology open2026
Screening Utility of Ambient Pressure Tympanometry for the Detection of Radiologic Correlates of Subjective Pulsatile Tinnitus.
Article in Otology & neurotology open, 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 determine the sensitivity and specificity of ambient pressure tympanometry (APT) for the detection of a radiologic correlate of subjective pulsatile tinnitus (PT). Study Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Tertiary care clinic. Patients: 107 adults (147 ears) with PT who underwent APT between 2021 and 2025. Interventions: Blinded audiologists classified APT tracings as pulse-synchronous or not. Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of APT using any radiologic diagnosis or surgeon-defined diagnosis as 2 separate gold standards. Results: Of 137 (93.2%) ears that underwent imaging, 63 (46%) had a pulse-synchronous APT pattern. Fifty-one (37.2%) had a radiologic correlate, and 65 (44.2%) were given a surgeon diagnosis. Respectively, APT sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 51%, 57%, 41.3%, and 66.2% for a radiologic correlate and were 43.1%, 54.9%, 43.1%, and 54.9% for a surgeon diagnosis. In a subgroup of 86 patients (116 ears) with a chief complaint of PT, APT sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for a radiologic correlate were 56.9%, 54.2%, 46%, and 55.2%, and for a surgeon diagnosis were 43.6%, 54.1%, 46.2%, and 51.6%. Conclusion: With a low sensitivity and specificity, APT may not be a reliable screening tool for the detection of a radiologic correlate of subjective PT. Clinicians should continue to pursue radiologic evaluation of PT despite a negative APT and counsel patients on the limits of imaging and the potential need for multiple modalities for the detection of subjective PT sources.
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.