ArticleJMIR research protocols2024
Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids Versus Traditional Hearing Aids in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the aging of society, the prevalence of hearing loss (HL) is increasing. Currently, approximately 5% of the global population has HL, and this number is projected to reach 7 million by 2050. Although hearing aids (HAs) are the primary treatment for HL, their use is limited by barriers such as high costs and social stigma. To address these limitations, over-the-counter (OTC) HAs have been introduced, but their effectiveness and drawbacks require further investigation.
objectiveThis study aims to conduct a noninferiority randomized controlled trial comparing OTC HAs with traditional HAs to assess the clinical effectiveness of OTC HAs.
methodsWe designed a noninferiority randomized controlled trial comparing OTC HAs and traditional HAs in adults with mild-to-moderate HL. A total of 64 participants (32 per group) will be recruited. Randomization will be performed using block randomization (block sizes of 2 or 4) with an equal allocation ratio. The study will include 2 types of HAs: an OTC HA (Jabra Enhance Pro) and a traditional HA (LiNX Quattro LE561-DRW) by GN ReSound A/S. OTC HAs will be self-fitted using a smartphone app, while traditional HAs will be fitted by a licensed audiologist using the National Acoustics Laboratories-Non-Linear Prescription, second generation. Assessments, including functional gain, real-ear measurement, speech audiometry, and questionnaires, will be conducted at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 visits. Statistical analysis will compare the 2 outcomes, focusing on functional gain, to determine noninferiority.
resultsThis study is scheduled to begin in August 2024 and has not yet recruited any participants. The study will be conducted over 2 years, from August 2024 to July 2026. Each participant will have 2 follow-up visits at 6-month intervals, making the total follow-up period 1 year.
conclusionsSince 2022, the introduction of OTC HAs has revolutionized access to these devices. Researchers, clinicians, and the general public are keen to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of OTC HAs, as more individuals will likely use them for HL. This increased usage will provide valuable real-world data to understand the benefits and limitations of OTC HAs. Monitoring the outcomes and user feedback will provide insights into their effectiveness and impact on hearing rehabilitation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/59894.
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.