PubTransformer

A site to transform Pubmed publications into these bibliographic reference formats: ADS, BibTeX, EndNote, ISI used by the Web of Knowledge, RIS, MEDLINE, Microsoft's Word 2007 XML.




PMID- 29776326
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20180525
LR  - 20180525
IS  - 1943-572X (Electronic)
IS  - 0003-4894 (Linking)
VI  - 127
IP  - 6
DP  - 2018 Jun
TI  - Validity of the Hum Test, a Simple and Reliable Alternative to the Weber Test.
PG  - 402-405
LID - 10.1177/0003489418772860 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of the Hum Test against the
      Weber Test using pure tone audiometry (PTA) as the "gold standard" comparator.
      METHODS: 29 participants with normal hearing of ages 18 to 35 without any history
      of hearing abnormalities or otologic conditions were enrolled. Subjects underwent
      three tests (Hum Test, Weber Test, and PTA) across two conditions: with an ear
      plug in one ear (side randomized) and without ear plugs. RESULTS: When examining 
      the ability of the Hum Test to detect simulated conductive hearing loss (CHL),
      the test had a sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 100% with high pitched
      humming and 93.1% and 100%, respectively, with low pitched humming. The Weber
      Test had a sensitivity and specificity of 96.6% and 100%, respectively. McNemar's
      test demonstrated agreement between the Hum Test, performed with either high
      pitched ( P = .32) or low pitched ( P = .56) humming, and the Weber Test.
      Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for the Hum Test (both high and
      low pitched) and Weber test were compared and demonstrated no statistically
      significant difference. CONCLUSION: The Hum Test is comparable to the Weber Test 
      with regards to its sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in
      assessing new onset unilateral CHL in previously normal hearing subjects.
FAU - Ahmed, Omar H
AU  - Ahmed OH
AUID- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7923-930X
AD  - 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University, New
      York, New York, USA.
FAU - Gallant, Sara C
AU  - Gallant SC
AUID- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4309-7853
AD  - 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University, New
      York, New York, USA.
FAU - Ruiz, Ryan
AU  - Ruiz R
AD  - 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University, New
      York, New York, USA.
FAU - Wang, Binhuan
AU  - Wang B
AD  - 2 Department of Population Health, Division of Biostatistics, New York
      University, New York, New York, USA.
FAU - Shapiro, William H
AU  - Shapiro WH
AD  - 3 Cochlear Implant Center, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
FAU - Voigt, Erich P
AU  - Voigt EP
AD  - 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York University, New
      York, New York, USA.
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Controlled Clinical Trial
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
JT  - The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology
JID - 0407300
SB  - AIM
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - *Audiometry
MH  - Cross-Sectional Studies
MH  - Female
MH  - Hearing Loss, Conductive/*diagnosis
MH  - Hearing Loss, Unilateral/*diagnosis
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - ROC Curve
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Sensitivity and Specificity
MH  - Young Adult
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - conductive hearing loss
OT  - hearing loss
OT  - hum test
OT  - sudden sensorineural hearing loss
OT  - tuning fork
EDAT- 2018/05/20 06:00
MHDA- 2018/05/26 06:00
CRDT- 2018/05/20 06:00
PHST- 2018/05/20 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2018/05/20 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2018/05/26 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1177/0003489418772860 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018 Jun;127(6):402-405. doi: 10.1177/0003489418772860.