ArticlePloS one2023
Applying the reference values of real-ear-to-coupler-difference for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Taiwan: Cautions and considerations.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurement of real-ear-to-coupler differentials (RECDs) is a critical part of the hearing aid (HA) verification process. This study examines the validity of reference RECD values preset by the HA analyzer, Audioscan RM500, for deaf-and-hard-of-hearing (DHH) children in Taiwan. RECD measurements were performed on 658 ears of DHH children. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the reference and measured RECD values. The findings revealed slight disparities between normative RECD values from North America and those observed in Taiwanese DHH children. While generally small (less than 5 dB), these differences imply potential challenges in achieving optimal HA fitting in specific scenarios. Therefore, we recommend individualized RECD/REM measurements for cases of poor auditory performance, certain frequency ranges, or notable variations in ear canal volume. From a clinical perspective, while broadly applicable, the use of North American RECD normative data in Taiwan requires cautious consideration of potential minor variations. This study contributes to current knowledge by affirming the use of a Western RECD database for Taiwanese DHH children. However, we underscore the ongoing importance of individualized HA fitting strategies, particularly for cases with stagnant intervention progress. While built-in RECD reference values can offer preliminary fitting guidance, especially in busy clinical settings, our study sheds light on the circumstances where caution is essential. Audiologists can efficiently allocate their time and effort by focusing on personalized RECD measurements for cases exhibiting suboptimal intervention outcomes, thereby effectively optimizing HA gain settings.
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.