These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28543040)

  • 41. Accuracy of Smartphone Self-Hearing Test Applications Across Frequencies and Earphone Styles in Adults.
    Barczik J; Serpanos YC
    Am J Audiol; 2018 Dec; 27(4):570-580. PubMed ID: 30242342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The word-with-noise test: development, validation and reference values.
    Costa LD; Vaucher AVA; Pagliarin KC; Costa MJ
    Codas; 2024; 36(3):e20230091. PubMed ID: 38836822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. An evaluation of speech audiometry by bone conduction in hearing-impaired adults.
    Karlsen EA; Goetzinger CP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Apr; 20(2):89-95. PubMed ID: 7345063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Communicative ability in an audiological perspective. Theory and application to post-secondary school students.
    Borg E; Samuelsson E; Danermark B; Rönnberg J
    Scand Audiol Suppl; 1999; 50():i-iv, 1-36. PubMed ID: 10810771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Pure tone audiometry as assessed by a commercially-available mobile phone application compared to formal audiometry.
    Davis L; Hwa TP; Eliades SJ; Bigelow DC; Ruckenstein MJ; Brant JA
    Am J Otolaryngol; 2022; 43(5):103552. PubMed ID: 35932690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Smartphone Based Audiometric Test for Confirming the Level of Hearing; Is It Useable in Underserved Areas?
    Renda L; Selçuk ÖT; Eyigör H; Osma Ü; Yılmaz MD
    J Int Adv Otol; 2016 Apr; 12(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 27340985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Reliability and accuracy of a method of adjustment for self-measurement of auditory thresholds.
    Van Tasell DJ; Folkeard P
    Otol Neurotol; 2013 Jan; 34(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 23202154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer.
    Bastianelli M; Mark AE; McAfee A; Schramm D; Lefrançois R; Bromwich M
    J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2019 Nov; 48(1):59. PubMed ID: 31699157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. OtoID: new extended frequency, portable audiometer for ototoxicity monitoring.
    Dille MF; Jacobs PG; Gordon SY; Helt WJ; McMillan GP
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2013; 50(7):997-1006. PubMed ID: 24301436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Large-corpus phoneme and word recognition and the generality of lexical context in CVC word perception.
    Gelfand JT; Christie RE; Gelfand SA
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2014 Feb; 57(1):297-307. PubMed ID: 24687475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. An Automated Speech-in-Noise Test for Remote Testing: Development and Preliminary Evaluation.
    Paglialonga A; Polo EM; Zanet M; Rocco G; van Waterschoot T; Barbieri R
    Am J Audiol; 2020 Sep; 29(3S):564-576. PubMed ID: 32946249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. The development of psychometrically equivalent Cantonese speech audiometry materials.
    Nissen SL; Harris RW; Channell RW; Conklin B; Kim M; Wong L
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Mar; 50(3):191-201. PubMed ID: 21319936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The development of the University of Jordan word recognition test.
    Garadat SN; Abdulbaqi KJ; Haj-Tas MA
    Int J Audiol; 2017 Jun; 56(6):424-430. PubMed ID: 28332432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Audiological and subjective benefit results in bone-anchored hearing device users.
    Boleas-Aguirre MS; Bulnes Plano MD; de Erenchun Lasa IR; Ibáñez Beroiz B
    Otol Neurotol; 2012 Jun; 33(4):494-503. PubMed ID: 22472615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.
    Morera C; Manrique M; Ramos A; Garcia-Ibanez L; Cavalle L; Huarte A; Castillo C; Estrada E
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2005 Jun; 125(6):596-606. PubMed ID: 16076708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Long-term effects of hearing aids on word recognition scores.
    Song JE; Tanaka SM; Pinto JM; Rasmussen B; Ferro LM; Saadia-Redleaf MI
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2011 May; 120(5):314-9. PubMed ID: 21675587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Fixed-Level Frequency Threshold Testing for Ototoxicity Monitoring.
    Rieke CC; Clavier OH; Allen LV; Anderson AP; Brooks CA; Fellows AM; Brungart DS; Buckey JC
    Ear Hear; 2017; 38(6):e369-e375. PubMed ID: 28362673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Computer-assisted audiometry versus manual audiometry.
    Ho AT; Hildreth AJ; Lindsey L
    Otol Neurotol; 2009 Oct; 30(7):876-83. PubMed ID: 20179426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Using audiometric thresholds and word recognition in a treatment study.
    Halpin C; Rauch SD
    Otol Neurotol; 2006 Jan; 27(1):110-6. PubMed ID: 16371857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. A study of recorded versus live voice word recognition.
    Mendel LL; Owen SR
    Int J Audiol; 2011 Oct; 50(10):688-93. PubMed ID: 21812631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.