ArticleTrends in hearing
Direct-to-Consumer Hearing Devices: Capabilities, Costs, and Cosmetics.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Trends in hearingPooled it
- Consumer preferences for hearing health care information and services as described by older adults surveyed in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Electroacoustic Verification Comparison of AirPods Pro 2nd and 3rd Generations and Traditional Hearing Aids.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Article
- Participant valued appearance of bone conduction devices: a comparison between percutaneous and transcutaneous systems.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 · 2025Article
- Are Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Rates Higher for Traditional or Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids?Seminars in hearing · 2025Review
- Comparing criteria for deviation from hearing aid prescriptive targets in children.International journal of audiology · 2024Article
- Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Prioritizing research on over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids for age-related hearing loss.Frontiers in aging · 2023Article
- Hearables as a Gateway to Hearing Health Care.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2022Article
- Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices.Seminars in hearing · 2020Review
- Preferences for Hearing Aid Attributes Among People with Moderate or Greater Hearing Loss in Rural China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Minimal and Mild Hearing Loss in Children: Association with Auditory Perception, Cognition, and Communication Problems.Ear and hearingArticle
- Article
- ManCAD100: 100 Years of Audiology and Deaf Education at Manchester.Trends in hearingArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) hearing devices can be purchased without consulting a hearing health professional. This project aims to compare 28 DTC devices with the most popular hearing aid supplied by the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). The comparison was based on technical performance, cosmetic acceptability, and the ability to match commonly used gain and slope targets. Electroacoustic performance was evaluated in a 2-cc coupler. Match to prescription target for both gain and slope was measured on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research using a mild and also a moderate sloping hearing loss. Using an online blinded paired comparison of each DTC and the NHS reference device, 126 participants (50 were hearing aid users and 76 were nonhearing aid users) assessed the cosmetic appearance and rated their willingness-to-wear the DTC devices. The results revealed that higher purchase prices were generally associated with a better match to prescribed gain-frequency response shapes, lower distortion, wider bandwidth, better cosmetic acceptability, and higher willingness-to-wear. On every parameter measured, there were devices that performed worse than the NHS device. Most of the devices were rated lower in terms of aesthetic design than the NHS device and provided gain-frequency responses and maximum output levels that were markedly different from those prescribed for commonly encountered audiograms. Because of the absence or inflexibility of most of the devices, they have the potential to deliver poor sound quality and uncomfortably loud sounds. The challenge for manufacturers is to develop low-cost products with cosmetic appeal and appropriate electroacoustic characteristics.
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.