Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363275›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023

Digital vs. physical ear-nose-and-throat specialist assessment screening for complicated hearing loss and serious ear disorders in hearing-impaired adults prior to hearing aid treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Lene Dahl Siggaard, Henrik Jacobsen, Dan Dupont Hougaard, Morten Høgsbro

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05154539 (Innovation of Hearing Rehabilitation and Effects of Reform), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT05154539 nacompletednot on this map

Innovation of Hearing Rehabilitation and Effects of Reform

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg University HospitalRan2021 to 2022Enrolled751ConditionsHearing LossArmsRemote digital assessment, Conventional physical assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient Self-Recorded Digital Otoscopy in Otology Diagnostics.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Digital otoscopy in remote consultations.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024
    Article
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lene Dahl SiggaardDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, and Audiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Henrik JacobsenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, and Audiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Dan Dupont HougaardDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, and Audiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Morten HøgsbroDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, and Audiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study introduces a digital assessment tool for asynchronous and remote ear-nose-and-throat (ENT) specialist assessment screening for complicated hearing loss and serious ear disorders in hearing-impaired adults prior to hearing aid (HA) treatment. The +60 population will nearly double from 12% to 22% between 2015 and 2050 increasing the incidence of age-induced hearing impairment and the need for hearing rehabilitation. If un-diagnosed, age-related hearing loss negatively affects quality of life by accelerating social distancing and early retirement as well as increasing risk of anxiety, depression, and dementia. Therefore, innovative measures are essential to provide timely diagnostics and treatment. Methods: A total of 751 hearing-impaired adults without previous HA usage or experience were randomly assigned to digital or physical ENT specialist assessment screening prior to HA treatment initiation in 20 public and private hearing rehabilitation and ENT specialist clinics in the North Denmark Region. A total of 501 test group participants were assigned to digital assessment screening and 250 control group participants to physical assessment screening prior to HA treatment. Results: In all, 658 (88%) participants completed the trial and were eligible for analysis. Digital screening sensitivity (0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.94) was significantly higher than physical screening sensitivity (0.2, 95% CI: 0.03-0.56). Screening specificity was high for both assessment methods. Discussion: In a setting where hearing-impaired adults were assessed for HA treatment, digital ENT specialist assessment screening did not compromise patient safety or increase the risk of misdiagnosis in patients with complicated hearing loss and/or serious ear disorders when compared to physical ENT specialist assessment screening. Clinical Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05154539, identifier: NCT05154539.

Indexed as

digital assessmenthearing aidhearing-impaired adultshearing loss (MesH term)screening

Identifiers

PMID37363275
PMCPMC10285396
OpenAlexW4379876062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.