ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2026
Comparing the Results of Sound Field Audiometry With Traditional Headphone-Based Audiometry: Implications for Assessing Hearing Aid Benefits Using Functional Gain.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study aimed to compare sound field audiometry (SFA) and headphone-based audiometry (HPA) during the hearing aid fitting process. Factors associated with the differences between the two methods were also investigated. Subjects and.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 42 patients who underwent both unaided SFA and HPA on the same day.
resultsHearing thresholds obtained in SFA were lower than those measured with HPA at 250 Hz (p=0.016). No significant differences were observed at other frequencies. When comparing the clinical characteristics of the groups with lower and higher thresholds of SFA at 250 Hz, patients with mixed hearing loss (MHL) were more prevalent in the group with lower hearing thresholds in SFA, whereas those with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) were more common in the group with equal or higher thresholds in SFA (p=0.011). Moreover, in subjects with SNHL, no significant difference was observed between the average of the thresholds at the four frequencies (4-FA) of SFA and that of HPA (p=0.156), while a significant difference was observed in subjects with MHL (p=0.028). When compared across the frequency, the thresholds of SFA at 250 Hz and 1,000 Hz were significantly lower than those of HPA (p=0.004 and p=0.009, respectively) in MHL.
conclusionsImprovement in aided hearing in SFA compared with unaided HPA must be interpreted with caution at lower frequencies in subjects with MHL. Meanwhile, when validating the efficacy in HA users with SNHL, the process can be simplified using unaided HPA instead of SFA; however, unaided SFA should be employed in those with MHL.
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.