Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37942535›Full record

Trial reportTrends in hearing

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit.

Ibrahim Almufarrij, Harvey Dillon, Benjamin Adams, Aneela Greval, Kevin J Munro

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in Otolaryngology research: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Ibrahim AlmufarrijManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4043-7234
Harvey DillonManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Benjamin AdamsManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Aneela GrevalManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Kevin J MunroManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR203308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hearing aid verification with real-ear measurement (REM) is recommended in clinical practice. Improvements, over time, in accuracy of manufacturers' initial fit mean the benefit of routine REM for new adult users is unclear. This registered, double-blinded, randomized, mixed-methods clinical trial aimed to (i) determine whether new adult hearing aid users prefer initial or real-ear fit and (ii) investigate the reasons for preferences. New adult hearing aid users (

Indexed as

Hearing AidsHearing LossHearing Loss, SensorineuralSpeech PerceptionAdultDouble-Blind MethodHumansNoiseclick and fithearing aidsinitial fitpreferenceprobe-tube measurementsreal-ear measurementsverification

Identifiers

PMID37942535
PMCPMC10637150
OpenAlexW4388539573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.