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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7987019)

  • 1. Early indicators of hearing conservation program performance.
    Simpson TH; Stewart M; Kaltenbach JA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1994 Sep; 5(5):300-6. PubMed ID: 7987019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of pre-existing hearing loss and gender on proposed ANSI S12.13 outcomes for characterizing hearing conservation program effectiveness: preliminary investigation.
    Amos NE; Simpson TH
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1995 Nov; 6(6):407-13. PubMed ID: 8580500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of audiometric threshold step size on proposed ANSI S12.13 outcomes for characterizing hearing conservation program effectiveness.
    Simpson TH; Stewart M; Kaltenbach JA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1993 Jul; 4(4):258-63. PubMed ID: 8369543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of pre-existing hearing loss on proposed ANSI S12.13 outcomes for characterizing hearing conservation program effectiveness: follow-up investigation.
    Simpson TH; Amos N; Rintelmann WF
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1998 Apr; 9(2):112-20. PubMed ID: 9564673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The contribution of focus groups in the evaluation of hearing conservation program (HCP) effectiveness.
    Prince MM; Colligan MJ; Stephenson CM; Bischoff BJ
    J Safety Res; 2004; 35(1):91-106. PubMed ID: 14992850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Factors affecting laterality of standard threshold shift in occupational hearing conservation programs.
    Simpson TH; McDonald D; Stewart M
    Ear Hear; 1993 Oct; 14(5):322-31. PubMed ID: 8224575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Audiometric referral criteria for industrial hearing conservation programs.
    Simpson TH; Stewart M; Blakley BW
    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1995 Apr; 121(4):407-11. PubMed ID: 7702814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ambient noise levels in industrial audiometric test rooms.
    Frank T; Williams DL
    Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1994 May; 55(5):433-7. PubMed ID: 8209846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of criteria for significant threshold shift in workplace hearing conservation programs.
    Daniell WE; Stover BD; Takaro TK
    J Occup Environ Med; 2003 Mar; 45(3):295-304. PubMed ID: 12661187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of hearing conservation programs on incidence of noise-induced hearing loss in Canadian workers.
    Davies H; Marion S; Teschke K
    Am J Ind Med; 2008 Dec; 51(12):923-31. PubMed ID: 18726988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Age correction in monitoring audiometry: method to update OSHA age-correction tables to include older workers.
    Dobie RA; Wojcik NC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e007561. PubMed ID: 26169804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Methodological issues when comparing hearing thresholds of a group with population standards: the case of the ferry engineers.
    Dobie RA
    Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):526-37. PubMed ID: 16957502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of the proposed Draft American National Standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs.
    Adera T; Donahue AM; Malit BD; Gaydos JC
    J Occup Med; 1993 Jun; 35(6):568-73. PubMed ID: 8331436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Should the audiometric database analysis method (draft ANSI S12.13-1991) for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs be accepted as a US national standard?
    Adera T; Gullickson GM; Helfer T; Wang L; Gardner JW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 1995 Jul; 6(4):302-10. PubMed ID: 7548930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [A simple procedure for elevation of the auditory threshold. Preliminary verifications].
    CAELS FG
    Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg; 1961; 15():574-8. PubMed ID: 13875493
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Impact of Annual Audiograms on Employee's Habits and Awareness Regarding Hearing Protection and Noise Induced Hearing Loss, On and Off the Job.
    Leshchinsky A
    Workplace Health Saf; 2018 Apr; 66(4):201-206. PubMed ID: 29385946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ambient noise levels in mobile audiometric testing facilities: compliance with industry standards.
    Lankford JE; Perrone DC; Thunder TD
    AAOHN J; 1999 Apr; 47(4):163-7. PubMed ID: 10418346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Industrial audiometry and the otologist.
    Dobie RA
    Laryngoscope; 1985 Apr; 95(4):382-5. PubMed ID: 3982182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Auditory models of suprathreshold distortion and speech intelligibility in persons with impaired hearing.
    Bernstein JG; Summers V; Grassi E; Grant KW
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Apr; 24(4):307-28. PubMed ID: 23636211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the previous and incoming categorisations of audiograms in the occupational health setting in Ireland.
    Mc Donnell C
    Ir Med J; 2007 Sep; 100(8):555-6. PubMed ID: 17955688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.