Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28944461›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.

Melanie A Ferguson, Pádraig T Kitterick, Lee Yee Chong, Mark Edmondson-Jones, Fiona Barker, Derek J Hoare

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 198 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
198citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05782153 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids: A Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorhearX GroupRan2023 to 2023Enrolled40ConditionsHearing LossArmsIntervention A (hearing aid self-fitting with direct adjustment), Intervention B (hearing aid self-fitting with in-situ fitting)
NCT07506408 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

PLUS-Optimal for Adults With Listening Difficulties: Investigating the Roles of Listening and Thinking Skills in Online Training Across Different Groups

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NottinghamRan2026 to 2027Enrolled120ConditionsHearing LossArmsPractice Listening and Understand Speech (PLUS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

198 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 364 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Additional interventions for enhancing the quality-of-life of older adults using hearing aids: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

138 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Melanie A FergusonNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Ropewalk House, 113 The Ropewalk, Nottingham, UK, NG1 5DU.
Pádraig T Kitterick
Lee Yee Chong
Mark Edmondson-Jones
Fiona Barker
Derek J Hoare
Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBCochrane · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. SEARCH

methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN

resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsQuality of LifeActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overHearing LossHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28944461
PMCPMC6483809
OpenAlexW2203446958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.