ArticleHNO2022
[Effectiveness of hearing aid provision for severe hearing loss].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Depression risk after cochlear implantation compared with other rehabilitation strategies in severe hearing loss: a nationwide cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Tone Decay Reconsidered: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study in Hearing-Aid Users with Moderate to Severe Hearing Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth on Speech Perception Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Otology & neurotology open · 2023Article
- Article
- Evolving a Model for Cochlear Implant Outcome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear impIant provision.HNO · 2023Article
- [Validation of a predictive model for speech discrimination after cochlear implant provision].HNO · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn practice, the unilateral monosyllabic speech recognition score with hearing aid (WRS MATERIALS AND
methodsData from real-ear measurements (REM), pure tone and speech audiogram, and speech recognition with and without hearing aid of 93 ears in 64 patients were examined. The patients visited the authors' hearing center for hearing aid evaluation in 2019. Deviations of the real-ear measured frequency-dependent output level values from the prescription targets NAL-NL2 and DSL v5.0 were analyzed. Spearman correlation coefficients for the speech intelligibility index (SII) were calculated for the parameters WRS
resultsIn more than 67% of the hearing aid fittings, output level values matched the target curves of NAL-NL2 or DSL v5.0 in the range of ±5 dB for frequencies from 0.5 to 4 kHz at 65 dB SPL. Nevertheless, WRS
conclusionFor patients with severe to profound hearing loss, the prescription targets of NAL-NL2 and DSL v5.0 do not provide sufficient amplification for WRS
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.