1949
DOI: 10.1002/lary.5540591003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical reliability of bone conduction audiometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

1950
1950
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This phenomenon was first reported by Carhart [1] in 1949. Later, he demonstrated an improvement in the BC threshold after successful fenestration surgery for otosclerosis, and this depression in the BC threshold was designated the Carhart notch.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…This phenomenon was first reported by Carhart [1] in 1949. Later, he demonstrated an improvement in the BC threshold after successful fenestration surgery for otosclerosis, and this depression in the BC threshold was designated the Carhart notch.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…This means that in otosclerosis, BC thresholds do not always reflect sensorineural cochlear function. In 1949, Carhart already assumed the BC hearing loss in otosclerosis to be at least in part a mechanical suppression of inner ear function due to the fixed stapes footplate [Carhart and Hayes, 1949]. This was demonstrated after successful fenestration surgery, when the postoperative audiograms showed improved BC hearing (on average by 5 dB at 500 Hz, 10 dB at 1000 Hz, 15 dB at 2000 Hz and 5 dB at 4000 Hz).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The study of test-retest variability of pure tone thresholds has a long history (Carhart & Hayes, 1949; Atherley & Dingwall-Fordyce, 1963; Dobie, 1983), and some have argued that the high variability of pure tone thresholds obtained in occupational settings compromise the usefulness of such data (Hetu, 1979; Atherley & Johnston, 1981). This position is inarguable in cases where inconsistent procedures, inadequate test environments and hardware, etc.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%