ArticleHNO2014
[Implementation of the new quality assurance agreement for the fitting of hearing aids in daily practice. Part 2: New diagnostic aspects of speech audiometry].
Article in HNO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB).European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Article
- Associations between the probabilities of frequency-specific hearing loss and unaided APHAB scores.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Article
- Hearing aids: indications, technology, adaptation, and quality control.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- The influence of frequency-dependent hearing loss to unaided APHAB scores.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Upon review of the statutory health insurance reimbursement guidelines, a specific quality assurance questionnaire concerned with the provision of hearing aids was introduced that assesses elements of patient satisfaction within Germany's public healthcare system. APHAB questionnaire-based patient evaluation of the benefit of hearing aids represents the third pillar of audiological diagnostics, alongside classical pure-tone and speech audiometry. Another new aspect of the national guidelines is inclusion of free-field measurements in noise with and without hearing aids. Part 2 of this review describes new diagnostic aspects of speech audiometry. In addition to adaptive speech audiometry, a proposed method for applying the gold standard of speech audiometry - the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test - in noise is described. Finally, the quality assurance questionnaire will be explained as an appendix to template 15 of the regulations governing hearing aids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25185973What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.