Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41136578›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026

Critical issues in bone anchored hearing aids.

Michael Dalè, Francesco Buono, Federica Simoni, Alessia Pennacchi, Elena Ferrari, Daniele Corbo, Santomauro Valentina, Eolo Mario Castello

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
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

8 authors.

Michael DalèDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. michael.dale1994@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3783-743X
Francesco BuonoDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Federica SimoniDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Alessia PennacchiDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Elena FerrariDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Daniele CorboDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Santomauro ValentinaDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Eolo Mario CastelloDepartment of Otolaryngology, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study investigates the audiological performance and user satisfaction of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA). It addresses four key aspects: comparison with conventional hearing aids, differences between percutaneous and transcutaneous devices, benefits in unilateral hearing loss, and the patient adaptation process.

methodsBetween January 2023 and June 2024, 40 patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss received BAHA implants. Audiological evaluations included pure-tone and free-field audiometry, the Italian Matrix Sentence Test, and satisfaction questionnaires.

resultsBAHA significantly improved hearing thresholds, speech recognition, and signal-to-noise ratios compared to the unaided situation and to the conventional hearing aid use, with sustained benefits over 3 months. Questionnaire scores confirmed enhanced patient-reported outcomes.

conclusionSignificant improvements were noted in audiometric and subjective outcomes, with BAHA outperforming conventional hearing aids in noise. Percutaneous devices showed better high-frequency performance, but both systems provided similar speech-in-noise benefits. BAHA also enhanced binaural hearing in unilateral loss. Audiologic results at 3 and 6 months are similar: after 3 months BAHA use, adaptation is complete.

Indexed as

Bone-Anchored ProsthesisHearing AidsHearing Loss, ConductiveHearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-SensorineuralAdultAgedAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSpeech PerceptionAdaptationBone anchored hearing aidsConventional hearing aidsMatrix sentence testMonolateral devicePercutaneousTranscutaneous

Identifiers

PMID41136578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.