Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40692325›Full record

ReviewTrends in hearing

Some Considerations for the Use of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as a Hearing-Aid Outcome Measure.

Larry E Humes, Sumitrajit Dhar, Jasleen Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in hearing. 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

3 authors.

Larry E HumesDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9668-3744
Sumitrajit DharThe Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Jasleen SinghThe Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2432-0511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) has been one of the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) since its inception 30 years ago. For the APHAB, single-valued 95% critical differences have been presented for the identification and interpretation of meaningful benefits in research and in the clinic. A narrative literature review of studies that used the global APHAB score as a hearing-aid outcome measure showed that the average benefit varied directly with the average unaided baseline score for each measure. Next, data from 584 older adults enrolled in our recently completed randomized controlled hearing-aid trial were examined. The same dependence of benefit scores on unaided baseline scores was observed in these data. Regression to the mean made relatively minor contributions to the observed dependence of APHAB scores on baseline unaided scores. These results indicate that the application of a single value for the 95% critical difference is not valid for the interpretation of APHAB scores. Rather, baseline-specific benefit criteria are needed. Based on these results, baseline-specific Minimal Detectable Differences (MDDs; or 95% critical differences) and Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs) using both distribution-based and anchor-based approaches were generated for the APHAB-global score.

Indexed as

Correction of Hearing ImpairmentHearing AidsHearing LossPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPersons with Hearing DisabilitiesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSpeech PerceptionTreatment Outcomehearing-aid outcomesminimal clinically important differencesminimal detectable differencespatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID40692325
PMCPMC12290275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.