ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2023
Comparative analysis between effective gain and functional gain in bone-anchored hearing aid users.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nine Years of Experience With Bonebridge: Long-Term Clinical and Audiological Outcomes.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Audiological Efficacy of Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids and the Factors Influencing Their Clinical Application.Audiology research · 2023Review
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
backgroundThe cases of ear malformations, conductive, mixed, and single-sided deafness hearing loss are candidates for surgery and use of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aids (BAHA). Commonly, the literature highlights two procedures to assess the benefits and characteristics of amplification in users: functional gain (FG) and effective gain (EG).
objectiveEstimate and compare the EG and the FG to evaluate the benefits obtained by users of BAHA and, later, to compare tests of speech perception in silence and in noise. METHODOLOGY: The sample (n=79) was divided into four groups, implanted from February 2014 to February 2021. The following tests were analyzed: pure-tone audiometry by air and bone; research of audiometric thresholds in free field; speech perception tests in silence and in noise.
resultsEG presented lower values than FG in all frequencies. The positive results of the speech perception tests were correlated with worse FG values. EG is the best method for evaluation, as it allows a proper comparison between devices, as well as a comparison with the prescription of validated rules.
conclusionsA better evaluation of results was observed on the EG values, indicating that it is a relevant method to assess auditory performance. In addition, the FG results were incompatible with the benefits obtained in the speech perception tests, showing that it is not a reliable tool for monitoring the results with the use of BAHA.
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.