ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2022
Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids Fitted According to NAL and DSL Procedures in Adults with Mixed Hearing Loss.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone-anchored hearing aids represent a valid alternative for patients with conductive/mixed hearing loss who cannot use hear- ing aids. To date, these devices have given good audiological results, thanks to various fitting prescription programs (i.e., National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level). The aim of this study is to compare 2 types of fitting algorithms (National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level) implemented for bone-anchored hearing devices.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 10 patients followed at our operative unit, suffering from bilateral symmetrical mixed hearing loss and who underwent bone-anchored hearing aid implantation. All patients experienced each prescriptive procedure, National Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level, for 7 months (on average), and they were subjected to audiological tests and questionnaires to evaluate the best program.
resultsNational Acoustic Laboratories and Desired Sensation Level prescriptions yielded similar results. Desired Sensation Level allowed less amplification of the low frequencies than the National Acoustic Laboratories prescription, and these differences were the only statistically sig- nificant. Desired Sensation Level allowed better disyllabic word and sentence recognition scores only in quiet and not in noisy conditions. The subjective questionnaires showed similar results. At the end of the trial sessions, more patients (60%) definitively chose the Desired Sensation Level program for their device. These patients were those with a worse hearing threshold.
conclusionThe 2 prescriptive programs allowed similar results although patients with a worse threshold seem to prefer the DSL program. This is the first evaluation of the 2 prescriptive programs, National Acoustic Laboratories versus Desired Sensation Level, for bone conduction devices available in the literature. Further studies are needed to confirm this initial finding.
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.