CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Ear Surgery and Otitis MediaHearing Loss and RehabilitationVestibular and auditory disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of the Hum Test, a Simple and Reliable Alternative to the Weber Test

Ahmed, Omar H., Gallant, Sara C., Ruiz, Ryan, Wang, Binhuan, Shapiro, William H., Voigt, Erich P.·2018·Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
DOI 10.1177/0003489418772860
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0003489418772860

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fligor B, 2013, Bluestone and Stool’s: Pediatric Otolaryngology, 317

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ahmed, O. H., Gallant, S. C., Ruiz, R., Wang, B., Shapiro, W. H., & Voigt, E. P.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Voigt, Erich P.
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-18
Volume
127
Issue
6
Pages
402-405
ISSN
  • 0003-4894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-572X
DOI
10.1177/0003489418772860
OpenAlex
W2804402312
Semantic Scholar
2cf6468d66cb570eb8d4ac3318ec892c32140320
Cited by
15
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Otology Rhinology & Laryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
Keywords
Weber test, conductive hearing loss, pure tone audiometry, diagnostic accuracy, earplugs, hearing screening, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Audiometry, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hearing Loss, Conductive, Humans, Male, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Hearing Loss, Unilateral, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review