Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30374208›Full record

ReviewSeminars in hearing2018

Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Lindsey E Jorgensen, Emily A Benson, Ryan W McCreery

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in hearing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Parenting Stress, Self-Efficacy, and Involvement: Effects on Spoken Language Ability Three Years After Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2021
    Article
  4. Frequency-lowering processing to improve speech-in-noise intelligibility in patients with age-related hearing loss.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Lindsey E JorgensenDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.
Emily A BensonDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota.
Ryan W McCreeryBoystown National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary goal of amplification is to restore audibility without causing discomfort; for someone with severe-to-profound hearing loss, the reduced dynamic range poses unique challenges in hearing-assistive device fitting. These challenges, including physiological limitation, processing difficulties, technology constraints, and other confounding factors, must be considered when selecting, fitting, and counseling for appropriate amplification. Many of the advanced features in hearing aids do not adequately address the unique characteristics of patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss. This review article will attempt to unravel some of the challenges and associated considerations when fitting adults and children with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Indexed as

adultsamplificationchildrenhearing loss

Identifiers

PMID30374208
PMCPMC6203456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.