ArticleYonsei medical journal2024
Apple AirPods Pro as a Hearing Assistive Device in Patients with Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electroacoustic Verification Comparison of AirPods Pro 2nd and 3rd Generations and Traditional Hearing Aids.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Mild but Not Minor: Reconsidering Clinical Practice and Tinnitus-Related Aspects of Mild Hearing Loss.Journal of audiology & otology · 2026Review
- Age-Related Hearing Loss: Evidence-Based Strategies for Early Detection and Management.ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of the Apple AirPods Pro with the headphone accommodation feature as a hearing assistive device for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss (HL). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included a total of 35 participants with mild to moderate HL. To determine the degree of HL in the participants, a screening test using pure-tone audiometry was conducted prior to the main tests of functional gain, word recognition score (WRS), and sentence recognition in noisy environments. The study employed two hearing devices: the Bean (a personal sound amplification product, PSAP) and the AirPods Pro.
resultsRegarding functional gain, there were no significant differences between the Bean and the AirPods Pro at all frequencies, except 8 kHz. In terms of WRS, both the Bean and the AirPods Pro had higher scores than the unaided condition. In sentence recognition, both the Bean and the AirPods Pro had higher scores than the unaided condition. During real-ear measurement, the Bean demonstrated consistent frequency responses, while the AirPods had a deviation exceeding 10 dB SPL at 6 kHz in the left ear. This deviation was absent for all other frequencies.
conclusionThis study shows that the Apple AirPods Pro, with its headphone accommodation feature, performed similarly to a validated PSAP and improved hearing compared to unaided conditions.
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.