ArticleTrends in hearing
Validation of a Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Intervention Compared with a Clinician-Fitted Hearing Aid Intervention: A Within-Subjects Crossover Design Using the Same Device.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Hearing Devices for Adults With Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Pooled it
- Self-Fit vs. Professional-Fit Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Trial
- Self-Fitting Versus Professional-Fitting Hearing Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Hearing Aid Research.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- Over-the-counter hearing aids and integrated health-monitoring sensors: a review of clinical evidence and implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Are Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Rates Higher for Traditional or Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids?Seminars in hearing · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In October of 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration finalized regulations establishing the category of self-fitting over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, intended to reduce barriers to hearing aid adoption for individuals with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss. Since then a number of self-fitting OTC hearing aids have entered the market, and a small number of published studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of a self-fitted OTC intervention against a traditional clinician-fitted intervention. Given the variety of self-fitting approaches available, and the small number of studies demonstrating effectiveness, the goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid intervention against a clinician-fitted intervention. Consistent with previous studies, we found that the self-fitted intervention was not inferior to the clinician-fitted intervention for self-reported benefit and objective speech-in-noise outcomes. We found statistically significant improvements in self-fitted outcomes compared to clinician-fitted outcomes, though deviations from best audiological practices in our clinician-fitted intervention may have influenced our results. In addition to presenting our results, we discuss the state of evaluating the noninferiority of self-fitted interventions and offer some new perspectives.
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.