ArticleInternational journal of audiology2024
Comparing criteria for deviation from hearing aid prescriptive targets in children.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is There a Relationship Between Infant and Toddler Speech Discrimination Abilities and Mean Length of Utterance at 33 Months?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- The Speech Intelligibility Index: Tutorial and Applications for Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- The Role of Phoneme Discrimination in the Variability of Speech and Language Outcomes Among Children with Hearing Loss.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Characteristics of Hearing Aid Use in Adolescents Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if a stricter criterion for paediatric hearing aid fitting for proximity of fit-to-target of <3 dB root-mean-square (RMS) error produces better audibility and outcomes compared to the current <5 dB criterion, and to examine the relationship between aided audibility and RMS error by degree of hearing loss.
designWe evaluated the influence of unaided hearing level on the relationship between RMS error and aided audibility. We assessed the effect of RMS error category (<3, 3-5, >5 dB) on aided audibility, speech recognition, expressive vocabulary, and morphosyntax. STUDY SAMPLE: The study included 2314 hearing aid verification measurements from 307 children with hearing aids.
resultsChildren who met a <3 dB criterion had higher aided audibility than children who met no criterion (>5 dB error). Results showed no differences in speech recognition or vocabulary by error category, but children with <3 dB error demonstrated better morphosyntax than children with 3-5 and >5 dB RMS error.
conclusionsFittings that are close to prescriptive targets provide a more positive outcome for children with hearing aids. Using probe microphone measures to adjust hearing aids to within 3 dB may benefit language abilities in children.
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.