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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9564673)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. Hearing conservation programs (HCPs): the effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shift environment.
    Reynolds JL; Royster LH; Pearson RG
    Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1990 Aug; 51(8):437-46. PubMed ID: 2392973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using audiometric data base analysis.
    Royster JD; Royster LH
    J Occup Med; 1986 Oct; 28(10):1055-68. PubMed ID: 3772540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Development and evaluation of a tablet-based diagnostic audiometer.
    Thoidis I; Vrysis L; Markou K; Papanikolaou G
    Int J Audiol; 2019 Aug; 58(8):476-483. PubMed ID: 30987489
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An epidemiologic method for assessing the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs using audiometric data.
    Adera T; Donahue AM; Malit BD; Gaydos JC
    Mil Med; 1993 Nov; 158(11):698-701. PubMed ID: 8284053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device.
    Kimlinger C; McCreery R; Lewis D
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2015 Feb; 26(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 25690773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The CON-SOT-LOT test for nonorganic hearing loss.
    Martin JS; Martin FN; Champlin CA
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2000 Jan; 11(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 10741356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effectiveness of the Navy's Hearing Conservation Program.
    Wolgemuth KS; Luttrell WE; Kamhi AG; Wark DJ
    Mil Med; 1995 May; 160(5):219-22. PubMed ID: 7659208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Auditory brainstem evoked response as a hearing test in infants and children: a follow up study.
    Weston PF; Manson JI
    Aust Paediatr J; 1985 May; 21(2):85-9. PubMed ID: 4038223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 20. Comparison of the noise attenuation of three audiometric earphones, with additional data on masking near threshold.
    Berger EH; Killion MC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1989 Oct; 86(4):1392-403. PubMed ID: 2808913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.