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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Cummings Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery
Zacharek, M. A. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.36 · Cited by 648
Does This Patient Have Hearing Impairment?
Bagai, A. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.4.416 · Cited by 205
Hearing loss in children with otitis media with effusion: a systematic review
Cai, T., & McPherson, B. (2016) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2016.1250960 · Cited by 113
The Rinne Test for Conductive Deafness: A Critical Reappraisal
Chole, R. A., & Cook, G. B. (1988) · Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/archotol.1988.01860160043018 · Cited by 52
Determinants of Conductive Hearing Loss in Tympanic Membrane Perforation
Park, H., Hong, S., Kim, H. S., Han, J. J., Chung, J., Seo, M.-W., Oh, S. H., Chang, S.-O., & Lee, J. H. (2015) · Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.3342/ceo.2015.8.2.92 · Cited by 51
Tuning Fork Testing in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Shuman, A. G., Li, X., Halpin, C. F., Rauch, S. D., & Telian, S. A. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2813 · Cited by 33
Bickerton, R. C., & Barr, G. S. (1987) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107688708001215 · Cited by 25
Orji, F. T., & Agu, C. C. (2009) · Clinical Otolaryngology · doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.02035.x · Cited by 15
How Reliable Is the “Scratch Test” Versus the Weber Test After Tympanomastoid Surgery?
Iacovidou, A., Giblett, N., Doshi, J., & Jindal, M. (2014) · Otology & Neurotology · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000000357 · Cited by 15
Humming test for conductive hearing loss
Brown, J. (1995) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92150-8 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fligor B, 2013, Bluestone and Stool’s: Pediatric Otolaryngology, 317
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update)
Chandrasekhar, S. S., Tsai Do, B. S., Schwartz, S. R., Bontempo, L. J., Faucett, E. A., Finestone, S. A., Hollingsworth, D. B., Kelley, D. M., Kmucha, S. T., Moonis, G., et al. (2019) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1177/0194599819859885 · Cited by 931
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Emergency
Prince, A. D. P., & Stucken, E. Z. (2021) · The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2021.01.200199 · Cited by 75
Ng, B., Crowson, M. G., & Lin, V. (2021) · Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1186/s40463-021-00498-x · Cited by 26
Telemedicine for Patients With Unilateral Sudden Hearing Loss in the COVID-19 Era
Shilo, S., Ungar, O. J., Handzel, O., Eta, R. A., Shapira, U., Muhanna, N., & Oron, Y. (2021) · JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2021.3672 · Cited by 13
The cell phone vibration test: A telemedicine substitute for the tuning fork test
Yang, A. Y. J., Lewis, R. J., Watson, N. L., Riley, C. A., & Tolisano, A. M. (2021) · Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/lio2.665 · Cited by 8
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
