ArticleLaryngo- rhino- otologie2022
[Possibilities to predict the success of an individual hearing aid fitting using the APHAB].
Article in Laryngo- rhino- otologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise].Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2012, the APHAB is part of the quality agreement for statutory insured patients in hearing aid fitting (HAF). So far, individual results could be interpreted by using percentile curves only, but not for the improvement quotient and the cumulated benefit. The presented study should close this gap. Moreover, it should be clarified if an individual constancy within percentile exists.
methodsUsing the data of 6861 hearing aid fitted patients from a database, we calculated the benefit by improvement quotient and cumulated benefit for different age-classes and percentile-groups and presented by a heatmap. Individual constancy of percentile would be calculated using Spearman's rank correlation.
resultsThe average benefit was 21.41. The average of the improvement quotient was 41.01. It was significantly higher (44.36 %) in subjects younger than the average (27.26 years ± 11.86) than in the elderly (37.66 %). It decreased in cases of lower APHAB-scores before HAF concerning the percentile-group, ranging from 23.22 % to 52.07 %. Spearman's rank coefficient for the APHAB benefit was 0.285, Cohen's effect size was small. The correlation between the APHAB-score before HAF and the cumulated benefit was 0.582 and the improvement quotient was 0.270.
conclusionsAn individual constancy within percentile before and after HAF was not detectable. Nevertheless, some relationships of the improvement quotient and the age resp. percentile-groups could be demonstrated. The benefit of HAF was less in older subjects with lower APHAB-scores and best in young subjects with higher APHAB-scores before HAF.
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.