Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25139516›Full record

ArticleGerontology2014

Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss.

Robyn M Cox, Jani A Johnson, Jingjing Xu

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gerontology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Hearables as a Gateway to Hearing Health Care.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robyn M CoxSchool of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn., USA.
Jani A Johnson
Jingjing Xu
University of Memphis · US

Funding

Effectiveness of basic and premium hearing aid features for older adultsR01DC011550 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS · PI COX, ROBYN MASTERTON · 2011 to 2015
$1.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011550NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC011550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHearing loss is one of the most common chronic health conditions of older people. Hearing aids are the customary treatment and they improve quality of life in older adults. Even so, relatively few older adults with uncomplicated, mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss use hearing aids. One reason for this is a belief that hearing aids do not provide sufficient value to justify their expense. Although modern hearing aids are available at several price points, there is minimal evidence about the relative benefits of premium-level versus basic-level hearing aid technologies.

objectiveThis research was designed to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of premium hearing aids compared with basic hearing aids in improving speech understanding and quality of life.

methods25 participants, including both new and experienced hearing aid users, completed blinded month-long field trials with each of four pairs of hearing aids: two basic and two premium level. Outcomes were laboratory speech understanding tests, standardized questionnaires and open-ended diary items.

resultsParticipants reacted very positively to all the hearing aids. Both everyday speech understanding and quality of life were substantially improved with hearing aids. RESULTS for both new and experienced users were consistent with a conclusion that there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in improvement between the premium- and basic-level hearing aids.

conclusionsIt should not be assumed that more costly hearing aids always produce better outcomes. With contemporary hearing aids from two major manufacturers, the subjects obtained as much improvement in speech understanding and quality of life from lower-cost basic-level instruments as from higher-cost premium-level instruments. Regardless of technology level, comprehensive best-practice fitting protocols should be followed to optimize results for every patient.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsSpeech PerceptionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsEquipment DesignFemaleHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSingle-Blind MethodSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25139516
PMCPMC4224118
OpenAlexW1978605716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.