Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35434580›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Chih-Hao Chen, Chii-Yuan Huang, Hsiu-Lien Cheng, Heng-Yu Haley Lin, Yuan-Chia Chu, Chun-Yu Chang, Ying-Hui Lai, Mao-Che Wang, Yen-Fu Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How useful are direct-to-consumer hearing aids?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Hao ChenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Chii-Yuan HuangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Lien ChengDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Heng-Yu Haley LinDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Yuan-Chia ChuDepartment of Information Management, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Chun-Yu ChangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City 231, Taiwan.
Ying-Hui LaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Mao-Che WangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Yen-Fu ChengDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWTaipei Veterans General Hospital · TWNational Taipei University of Nursing and Health Science · TWTaipei Tzu Chi Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187). Findings: Of 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; Interpretation: PSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices. Funding: This work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Indexed as

Conventional hearing aidsHearing impairmentMeta-analysisPersonal sound amplification productsPSAP

Identifiers

PMID35434580
PMCPMC9006672
OpenAlexW4224221575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.