ArticleAudiology & neuro-otology2020
Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures.
Article in Audiology & neuro-otology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Quality of Life in Bone Anchored Hearing: Conductive vs. Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss.The Laryngoscope · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding engagement with digital health interventions designed for adults with hearing loss and tinnitus: a mixed-method systematic review.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of social support and social network on the risk of hearing aids abandonment among older adults with hearing loss.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Changes in attitudes toward hearing loss and hearing aids and their association with hearing‑aid abandonment among experienced older adults hearing‑aid users.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Association Between Hearing Aid Use and Physical Activity Levels in Older Adults with Hearing Loss.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Article
- Association Between Unaided Speech Perception in Noise and Hearing Aid Use Mediated by Perceived Benefit.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Impact of Hearing Loss Severity on Hearing Aid Benefit Among Adult Users.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prestin in Human Perilymph, Cerebrospinal Fluid, and Blood as a Biomarker for Hearing Loss.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in First-Time and Experienced Hearing Aid Users: An Analysis of Five Predetermined Predictability Categories through Audiometric and Speech Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Accuracy and Consistency of Confidence Limits for Monosyllable Identification Scores Derived Using Simulation, the Harrell-Davis Estimator, and Nonlinear Quantile Regression.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Prevalence and predictors of self-reported hearing aid use and benefit in Norway: the HUNT study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) Questionnaires in a Large Cohort of Self-Reported Normal-Hearing Adult Listeners.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Hearing loss, depression, and cognition in younger and older adult CI candidates.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Results from the MarkeTrak 2022 Survey: Importance of Features and Hearing Care Professionals.Seminars in hearing · 2022Review
- Real-World Effectiveness of Wearable Augmented Reality Device for Patients With Hearing Loss: Prospective Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Results of Active Middle Ear Implantation in Patients With Mixed Hearing Loss After Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study (the ROMEO Study).Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2022Article
- Some Considerations for the Use of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as a Hearing-Aid Outcome Measure.Trends in hearingReview
- The Effect of Real Ear Target Deviations on SSQ and Speech Intelligibility in a Clinical Population.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures.
methodsIndependent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit.
resultsSignificant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively).
conclusionHearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.
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.