ArticleHNO2016
[Influence of hearing aids on monosyllabic test score and subjective everyday hearing].
Article in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision Audiometry and Ecological Validity: Exploring the Link Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Speech Testing in CI Users.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Article
- [Dependency of APHAB score in the ECHNO · 2018Article
- Article
- Review
- Diagnostics and therapy of sudden hearing loss.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
- Hearing aids: indications, technology, adaptation, and quality control.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPure tone and speech audiometry are essential methods for examining the indication for hearing aids, as well as for hearing aid evaluation. Additionally, the subjective benefit of hearing aids has to be evaluated with appropriate questionnaires. The aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation between speech audiometry data and the results of a simple and user-friendly questionnaire, as well as to provide normative data for subjective benefit. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 136 hearing aid users with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were analyzed retrospectively. Pure tone thresholds and Freiburg monosyllabic speech perception in the binaural situation were measured at 65 dB in quiet and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio, SNR = +5 dB), with and without hearing aids. Additionally, subjective hearing in everyday life was recorded using the 12-item Oldenburg Inventory.
resultsImprovement of speech perception with hearing aids for the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet was 32.0 percentage points on average; in noise, there was an average improvement of 16.4 percentage points. There was a strong correlation between the results of pure tone and speech audiometry. With hearing aids, patients scored their everyday hearing using the Oldenburg Inventory on average 1.4 scale points better than without hearing aids. Results of the Oldenburg Inventory correlate with both pure tone and speech audiometry.
conclusionHearing aid evaluation should include both speech audiometry and systematic measurement of the subjective benefit using a suitable questionnaire. In combination, the Freiburg monosyllabic test and the Oldenburg Inventory allow for quick and comprehensive evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.