Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42357762›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2026

Objective Assessment of a Hearing Protection Device for Canines.

Joshuah B Klutzke, George E Moore, Emily S Curry, Stephanie A Thomovsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joshuah B KlutzkeCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
George E MooreCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Emily S CurryCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Stephanie A ThomovskyCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) has been reported in both people and canines and can raise the hearing threshold. In people, hearing protection devices (HPD's) are utilized to reduce the risk of hearing loss. In canines, HPD's have been developed, but none, to our knowledge, have been objectively tested to determine their ability to reduce incoming sound. We hypothesize that a canine hearing protection device (CHPD) will effectively protect hearing in canines by increasing hearing thresholds. Twenty-one apparently healthy canines between the ages of 4-69 months were anesthetized for routine surgical sterilization. Hearing thresholds were established using over-the-ear headphones (OTEH); starting at 70 dB nHL, sound was gradually diminished by 10 dB nHL until wave V was inapparent as recorded by BAER. Hearing thresholds were then established in the same patients while wearing CHPD. Median hearing thresholds for canines without the CHPD were 40 dB (range 5-70 dB) in the left ear and 50 dB (range 20-70 dB) in the right ear. Median hearing thresholds for canines with the CHPD were >70 dB AU (range 65-70 dB). Twenty out of twenty-one canines had hearing thresholds > 70 dB with the CHPD in place. The CHPD objectively increased the hearing threshold in canines, blocking sound of less than or equal to 70 dB nHL. This device could be utilized to lessen the likelihood of NIHL in canines.

Indexed as

brainstem auditory evoked responsecanine hearing protection devicehearing thresholdnoise-induced hearing loss

Identifiers

PMID42357762
PMCPMC13307777

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.