Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29716438›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Outcomes With a Self-Fitting Hearing Aid.

Gitte Keidser, Elizabeth Convery

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05782153 (Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05782153 nacompletednot on this map

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)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Usability and Performance of Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Effectiveness of a Self-Fitting Tool for User-Driven Fitting of Hearing Aids.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors.

Gitte Keidser1 National Acoustic Laboratories and the HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.
Elizabeth Convery1 National Acoustic Laboratories and the HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-fitting hearing aids (SFHAs)-devices that enable self-directed threshold measurements leading to a prescribed hearing aid (HA) setting, and fine-tuning, without the need for professional support-are now commercially available. This study examined outcomes obtained with one commercial SFHA, the Companion (SoundWorld Solutions), when support was available from a clinical assistant during self-fitting. Participants consisted of 27 experienced and 25 new HA users who completed the self-fitting process, resulting in 38 user-driven and 14 clinician-driven fittings. Following 12 weeks' experience with the SFHAs in the field, outcomes measured included the following: coupler gain and output, HA handling and management skills, speech recognition in noise, and self-reported benefit and satisfaction. In addition, the conventionally fitted HAs of 22 of the experienced participants who had user-driven fittings were evaluated. Irrespective of HA experience, the type of fitting (user- or clinician-driven) had no significant effect on coupler gain, speech recognition scores, or self-reported benefit and satisfaction. Users selected significantly higher low-frequency gain in the SFHAs when compared with the conventionally fitted HAs. The conventionally fitted HAs were rated significantly higher for benefit and satisfaction on some subscales due to negative issues with the physical design and implementation of the SFHAs, rather than who drove the fitting process. Poorer cognitive function was associated with poorer handling and management of the SFHAs. Findings suggest that with the right design and support, SFHAs may be a viable option to improve the accessibility of hearing health care.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsProsthesis FittingAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometryFemaleHearing LossHumansMaleSpeech Perceptionhealth benefithearing aidshearing health caremobile applicationspatient outcome assessmentpatient satisfactionpersons with hearing impairmentsspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID29716438
PMCPMC5991196

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.