Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39194412›Full record

ArticleAudiology research2024

Zinc-Air Hearing Aid Batteries: An Analysis of Functional Performance.

James Thomas, Barry Bardsley, Jane Wild, Michael William Owen Penman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Audiology research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

James ThomasAdult Audiology & Primary Care Service, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK.
Barry BardsleyFaculty of Medicine, Health & Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
Jane WildAudiology Service, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Rhyl LL18 5UJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6409-7775
Michael William Owen PenmanElectronics & Software, Team Consulting Ltd., Cambridgeshire CB10 1SX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of three disposable hearing aid battery brands available in Wales. Hearing-impaired individuals who utilise hearing aids rely on the functionality of their devices, which is often contingent upon the quality and longevity of disposable batteries. MATERIALS AND

methodsA grey literature review foregrounded the battery standards. The "real-life" use of batteries was supplemented through laboratory testing. Parameters relating to performance quality were used to quantify an overall service life of five PR44- and four PR48-size batteries per manufacturer.

resultsThe literature review signalled a large gap in hearing aid battery consumption research. All battery brands underperformed compared to their specifications but met IEC standards.

conclusionsRevisions to battery consumption test conditions should reflect new technological features and refine expectations of real-life use. It was possible to statistically identify the best performing hearing aid battery brand.

Indexed as

battery consumptiondisposable batteryhearing aid batteryzinc–air battery

Identifiers

PMID39194412
PMCPMC11351878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.