SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults.
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. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The State of High-Resolution Imaging of the Human Inner Ear: A Look Into the Black Box.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Dynamic micro-optical coherence tomography enables structural and metabolic imaging of the mammalian cochlea.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Update on surgical and nonsurgical treatment options for age-related hearing loss.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Review
- Abnormalities of Thalamic Functional Connectivity in Patients with Migraine: A Resting-State fMRI Study.Pain and therapy · 2022Article
- The Ethics of Translational Audiology.Audiology research · 2022Review
- Applying the Hearing Aid Fitting Standard to Selection for Adults.Seminars in hearing · 2022Review
- Effects of the intensified frequency and time ranges on consonant enhancement in bilateral cochlear implant and hearing aid users.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Deaf and non-deaf basketball and volleyball players' multi-faceted difference on repeated counter movement jump performances: Height, force and acceleration.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Assessing the Quality of Hearing Aids-Related Videos on TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Adjuvant therapy of Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of adenomyosis: A protocol for systematic review.Medicine · 2020Article
- Effects of moxibustion on symptoms of mild cognitive impairment: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Making the Case for Research on Disease-Modifying Treatments to Tackle Post-lingual Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Acupuncture for patients with premature ovarian insufficiency: A systematic review protocol.Medicine · 2019Article
- Factors associated with the efficiency of hearing aids for patients with age-related hearing loss.Clinical interventions in aging · 2019Article
- Supporting adults with hearing loss in primary care: new NICE guideline.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics for chronic kidney disease: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Acupuncture for constipation in patients with stroke: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcquired hearing loss is common and its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is sensorineural (due to the loss of cochlear hair cells) and bilateral, affecting both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to people with hearing loss of these different strategies.
objectivesTo assess the effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids in adults with a bilateral hearing impairment. SEARCH
methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies Online; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the fitting of two versus one ear-level acoustic hearing aids in adults (over 18 years) with a bilateral hearing impairment, both ears being eligible for hearing aids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were patient preference for bilateral or unilateral aids, hearing-specific health-related quality of life and adverse effects (pain or discomfort in the ear, initiation or exacerbation of middle or outer ear infection). Secondary outcomes included: usage of hearing aids (as measured by, for example, data logging or battery consumption), generic health-related quality of life, listening ability and audiometric benefit measured as binaural loudness summation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN
resultsWe included four cross-over RCTs with a total of 209 participants, ranging in age from 23 to 85 and with a preponderance of men. All the studies allowed the use of hearing aids for a total period of at least eight weeks before questions on preference were asked. All studies recruited patients with bilateral hearing loss but there was considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.Three of the studies were published before the mid-1990s whereas the fourth study was published in 2011. Therefore, only the most recent study used hearing aids incorporating technology comparable to that currently readily available in high-income settings. Of the four studies, two were conducted in the UK in National Health Service (NHS - public sector) patients: one recruited patients from primary care with hearing loss detected by a screening programme whereas the other recruited patients who had been referred by their primary care practitioner to an otolaryngology department for hearing aids. The other two studies were conducted in the United States: one study recruited only military personnel or veterans with noise-induced hearing loss whereas about half of the participants in the other study were veterans.Only one primary outcome (patient preference) was reported in all studies. The percentage of patients who preferred bilateral hearing aids varied between studies: this was 54% (51 out of 94 participants), 39% (22 out of 56), 55% (16 out of 29) and 77% (23 out of 30), respectively. We have not combined the data from these four studies. The evidence for this outcome is of very low quality.The other outcomes of interest were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThis review identified only four studies comparing the use of one hearing aid with two. The studies were small and included participants of widely varying ages. There was also considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.For the most part, the types of hearing aid evaluated would now be regarded, in high-income settings, as 'old technology', with only one study looking at 'modern' digital aids. However, the relevance of this is uncertain, as this review did not evaluate the differences in outcomes between the different types of technology.We were unable to pool data from the four studies and the very low quality of the evidence leads us to conclude that we do not know if people with hearing loss have a preference for one aid or two. Similarly, we do not know if hearing-specific health-related quality of life, or any of our other outcomes, are better with bilateral or unilateral aids.
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.