Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28592571›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Evaluating the short-term and long-term effects of an internet-based aural rehabilitation programme for hearing aid users in general clinical practice: a randomised controlled trial.

Milijana Malmberg, Thomas Lunner, Kim Kähäri, Gerhard Andersson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01837550 (A Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Short- and Long-term Effects of an Internet-based Aural Rehabilitation Program for Hearing Aid Users Implemented in a General Clinical Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT01837550 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Short- and Long-term Effects of an Internet-based Aural Rehabilitation Program for Hearing Aid Users Implemented in a General Clinical Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorSodra Alvsborgs HospitalRan2013 to 2014Enrolled74ConditionsHearing ImpairedArmsIntervention group, Control group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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.

Milijana MalmbergHearing Organization, Habilitation and Health, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden.
Thomas LunnerDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Kim KähäriDepartment of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.
Gerhard AnderssonDepartment of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGuided internet-based intervention beyond hearing aid (HA) fitting has been shown to be efficacious in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, internet interventions have rarely been applied clinically as a part of regular aural rehabilitation (AR). Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of internet-based AR for HA users from a clinical population. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) was used as the primary outcome measure, and the Communication Strategies Scale (CSS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were used as secondary outcome measures. All questionnaires were administered before and directly after the intervention and at 6 months postintervention.

methodsWe used a parallel group design (RCT). The data were collected in 2013-2014 at three different clinics. Seventy-four HA users were randomly assigned to receive either full internet-based AR (intervention group, n=37) or one element of the internet-based AR (control group, n=37).

resultsData were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. Each group showed improved HHIE scores over time and did not differ significantly from each other. The intervention group showed significantly greater improvement compared with the control group for the CSS total and the

conclusionsThis study indicates that participants in an internet-based intervention applied in general clinical practice showed improved self-reported communication skills compared with a control group. Receiving a full intervention was not more effective in improving self-reported hearing problems than receiving just one element of the internet-based intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrals.gov, NCT01837550; results.

Indexed as

InternetAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAnxietyCorrection of Hearing ImpairmentDepressionFemaleGeneral PracticeHearing AidsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSelf Reportaudiologyaural rehabilitationclinical practicehearing lossinternet

Identifiers

PMID28592571
PMCPMC5734201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.