ArticleAudiology research2023
Examination of Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Whether Individuals Would Purchase Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids.
Article in Audiology research, 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.
- The Effect of Gel Application on the Transducer in Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids: A Case Series Study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Cartilage Conduction Hearing Aids in Clinical Practice.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cartilage conduction hearing aids (CC-HAs) are a novel type of hearing aid relying on cartilage conduction, the so-called third auditory conduction pathway. However, CC-HAs have only recently entered routine clinical use, and therefore data on their usefulness are lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the possibility of assessing whether individual patients would show good adaptation to CC-HAs. Thirty-three subjects (41 ears in total) underwent a free trial of CC-HAs. Age, disease category, and the pure-tone threshold of air and bone conduction, unaided field sound threshold, aided field sound threshold, and functional gain (FG) at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were compared between patients who subsequently purchased and did not purchase the CC-HAs. Overall, 65.9% of the subjects purchased CC-HAs after the trial. In comparison to non-purchasers, those who decided to purchase CC-HAs showed better pure tone hearing thresholds at high frequencies for both air conduction (2 and 4 kHz) and bone conduction (1, 2, and 4 kHz), as well as for aided thresholds in the sound field (1, 2, and 4 kHz) when using CC-HAs. Therefore, the high-frequency hearing thresholds of subjects trialing CC-HAs might be helpful for identifying those who are likely to benefit from them.
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.