67 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16711196)
1. [Tuning fork study in deafness. Thus function Rinne and Weber tests].
Ziemer C
MMW Fortschr Med; 2006 Apr; 148(15):18. PubMed ID: 16711196
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Rinne revisited: steel versus aluminum tuning forks.
MacKechnie CA; Greenberg JJ; Gerkin RC; McCall AA; Hirsch BE; Durrant JD; Raz Y
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2013 Dec; 149(6):907-13. PubMed ID: 24085711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Rinne test: does the tuning fork position affect the sound amplitude at the ear?
Butskiy O; Ng D; Hodgson M; Nunez DA
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2016 Mar; 45():21. PubMed ID: 27013057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Implementation of tuning fork hearing tests using electronic devices].
Ponizov AG; Meshcheriakov RV
Med Tekh; 2012; (1):36-9. PubMed ID: 22442951
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic Accuracy of Tuning Fork Tests for Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.
Kelly EA; Li B; Adams ME
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2018 Aug; 159(2):220-230. PubMed ID: 29661046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The otologist's tuning fork examination--are you striking it correctly?
Stevens JR; Pfannenstiel TJ
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2015 Mar; 152(3):477-9. PubMed ID: 25475500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Paediatric hearing loss.
Nieto H; Dearden J; Dale S; Doshi J
BMJ; 2017 Mar; 356():j803. PubMed ID: 28279954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. A Smartphone-Based Weber Test May Discriminate between a Conductive and a Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
Ungar OJ; Handzel O; Cavel O; Oron Y
Audiol Neurootol; 2019; 24(4):191-196. PubMed ID: 31480043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validation of a smartphone-based Rinne test to detect an air-bone gap.
Hibscher D; Oron Y; Handzel O; Warshavsky A; Horowitz G; Ungar OJ
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2021 Dec; 278(12):4767-4773. PubMed ID: 33454812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Acute hearing loss: where is the damage?].
Bischoff A
MMW Fortschr Med; 2009 Dec; 151(51-52):12-4. PubMed ID: 20088313
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic Accuracy of Parallel vs Perpendicular Orientation of the Tuning Fork in the Identification of Conductive Hearing Loss.
Butskiy O; Nunez DA
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2018 Mar; 144(3):275-276. PubMed ID: 29392285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sudden deafness and tuning fork tests: towards optimal utilisation.
Bayoumy AB; de Ru JA
Pract Neurol; 2020 Feb; 20(1):66-68. PubMed ID: 31444233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Can smartphone vibration provide a valid alternative to tuning forks for use on the ENT ward round?
Hopkins ME; Owens D
J Laryngol Otol; 2019 Mar; 133(3):245-247. PubMed ID: 30983564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [On the underestimation of normal hearing].
Michel O
HNO; 2015 May; 63(5):380-2. PubMed ID: 25940009
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Providing audiological services to individuals with aphasia: considerations, preliminary recommendations, and a call for research.
Silkes JP
Am J Audiol; 2012 Jun; 21(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 22294320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 40 Hz auditory steady-state response in eleven subjects with false hearing loss.
Yüksel M; Atılgan A; Derinsu U
Clin Otolaryngol; 2020 Jul; 45(4):600-603. PubMed ID: 32198972
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Medical examination: preparation for ENT specialisation : Part 24].
Marek A
HNO; 2016 Apr; 64(4):265-7. PubMed ID: 27038032
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
