Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014251›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2024

Open-fitting hearing aids: a comparative analysis between open behind-the-ear and open completely-in-the-canal instant-fit devices.

Giuseppe Alberti, Daniele Portelli, Sabrina Loteta, Cosimo Galletti, Mariangela D'Angelo, Francesco Ciodaro

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Giuseppe AlbertiDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy.
Daniele PortelliDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy. danieleportelli@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8535
Sabrina LotetaDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy.
Cosimo GallettiDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy.
Mariangela D'AngeloDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy.
Francesco CiodaroDepartment of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology "Gaetano Barresi", Unit of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Messina, Messina, ME, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur study aims to assess the open-fitting capabilities and vent properties of traditional open-fitting behind-the-ear (open BTE) hearing aids to instant-fit open-fitting completely-in-the-canal (open CIC) systems.

methodsThe study analysed data from 40 patients grouped in two groups based on the used hearing aids. Free field pure tone and speech audiometry were performed to obtain the free-field pure tone average and free-field word recognition score (WRS). The matrix sentence test was employed to evaluate the auditory performance and functional outcomes of patients. The Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire were used to assess the personal satisfaction and benefit provided by the hearing aid. Real ear measurements were conducted to objectively evaluate the Real-Ear Unaided Gain (REUG) and Real-Ear Occluded Gain (REOG) of the two groups. For this purpose, six frequency bands (band 1 from 125 to 200 Hz, band 2 from 250 to 400 Hz, band 3 from 500 to 800 Hz, band 4 from 1000 to 1600 Hz, band 5 from 2000 to 3150 Hz, and band 6 from 4000 to 6300 Hz) were defined and compared.

resultsFree-field WRS exhibited a significant difference (p-value = 0.004) between open BTE and open CIC, with better results for the open BTE. Matrix test speech reception threshold scores did not differ significantly between groups. No statistical significant difference were observed between APHAB and SADL total scores. Correlation tests revealed a negative correlation between SRT and APHAB scores in the open BTE group, not seen in the open CIC. No statistically significant difference was observed for all bands of REUG values, demonstrating comparability in terms of acoustic resonance of the external auditory canal. Comparing the REOG recorded in the two groups a significant difference was observed for bands 2 through 6. While the average REOG values for bands 5 and 6 were higher in patients with traditional open BTE aids, in contrast, for bands 2, 3, and 4, the REOG values for the open CIC group were higher and statistically significant compared to patients wearing traditional open-fitting BTE hearing aids.

conclusionPatients with open CIC seem to perform worse in quiet environments compared to noisy ones, as indicated by the free field WRS score. However, the absence of differences in functional performance assessed with the matrix sentence test, and in the psychosocial aspects, makes these devices a good solution for individuals who reject hearing aids due to aesthetic concerns. The differences in terms of real ear measurements, while statistically significant, do not negatively impact overall performance.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedAudiometry, Pure-ToneFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignProsthesis FittingSurveys and QuestionnairesHearing aidsInstant-fitMatrix testOpen-fittingReal ear measurements

Identifiers

PMID39014251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.