Trial reportInternational journal of audiology2018
The use of self-report measures to examine changes in perception in response to fittings using different signal processing parameters.
Trial report in International journal of audiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Understanding Variability in Individual Response to Hearing Aid Signal Processing in Wearable Hearing Aids.Ear and hearingTrial
- Audiologist Decision-Making: Hearing Aid Technology Levels and Auditory Ecology.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
- Factors in the Effective Use of Hearing Aids among Subjects with Age-Related Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Auditory Profile-Based Hearing Aid Fitting: Self-Reported Benefit for First-Time Hearing Aid Users.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.Seminars in hearing · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Clinicians have long used self-report methods to assess hearing aid benefit. However, there are fewer data as to whether self-report instruments can be used to compare differences between signal processing settings. This study examined how self-perceived performance varied as a function of modifications in signal processing using two self-report measures. Data were collected as part of a double-blind randomised crossover clinical trial. Participants were fit with two fittings: mild processing (slow time constants, disabled frequency lowering) and strong processing (fast time constants, frequency lowering enabled). The speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) questionnaire and the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) questionnaire were collected at multiple time points. Older adults with sensorineural hearing loss who had not used hearing aids within the previous year participated (49 older adults were consented; 40 were included in the final data analyses). Findings show that listeners report a difference in perceived performance when hearing aid features are modified. Both self-report measures were able to capture this change in perceived performance. Self-report measures provide a tool for capturing changes in perceived performance when hearing aid processing features are modified and may enhance provision of an evidence-based hearing aid fitting.
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.