Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35903077›Full record

ReviewSeminars in hearing2022

Applying the Hearing Aid Fitting Standard to Selection for Adults.

Erin M Picou, Richard A Roberts, Gina Angley, Todd A Ricketts

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in hearing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Erin M PicouDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Richard A RobertsDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Gina AngleyDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Todd A RickettsDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

Cost-effective hearing aid delivery models: Outcomes, value, and candidacyR01DC015997 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Yu-Hsiang Wu · 2018 to 2026
$3.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015997
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent hearing aid fitting standard for adults outlines the minimum practice for audiologists fitting adult patients with hearing loss. This article focuses on three items of the standard (5, 6, and 7), which focus on the selection of unilateral/bilateral hearing aids, hearing aid style, and coupling, in addition to feature selection. The standard emphasizes that decisions around these three aspects should be recommended for a patient in an individualized manner, based on their needs assessment. For these decisions, the needs assessment might include measures of speech-in-noise ability, social network size, patient preference, and a trial period. Additional elements could include assessments of manual dexterity, binaural interference, and attitude toward hearing aids. However, there are a multitude of ways to practice clinically and still meet the items outlined in the standard. As long as the selection decisions consider individualized patient factors and are capable of meeting validated prescriptive targets, a clinician would be meeting the adult hearing aid fitting minimum standard guidance. In addition, despite the large number of past studies supporting these standards, additional, high-quality research including randomized, controlled, clinical trials are still needed to further support appropriate minimum standard recommendations.

Indexed as

adultshearing aid fittinghearing lossstandard

Identifiers

PMID35903077
PMCPMC9325089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.