Trial reportJournal of Korean medical science2026
Comparison of the Hearing Benefits and User Satisfaction With Hearing Aids and Personal Sound Amplification Products: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial.
Trial report in Journal of Korean medical science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile hearing aids (HAs) remain the primary intervention for hearing loss, their high cost creates barriers to access. Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are a more affordable alternative, but few studies have compared their efficacy to those of HAs. This multicenter, prospective, randomized, crossover trial was conducted to compare audiologic performance and user satisfaction between HAs and PSAPs to evaluate PSAP potential as alternatives for hearing rehabilitation.
methodsA total of 73 participants with sensorineural hearing loss was enrolled. Participants used one hearing device (HA or PSAP) for 3 months before changing to the other for 3 months. Outcome measures were pure-tone audiometry, word recognition score, and Hearing in Noise Test score. Subjective satisfaction was measured using standardized questionnaires-the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids-and two custom surveys.
resultsHAs showed superior performance in high-frequency functional gain, speech perception in noise, and user satisfaction compared to PSAPs. Premium HAs demonstrated better performance than basic HAs, while basic HAs significantly outperformed both high-end and basic PSAPs. No significant differences were found between high-end and basic PSAPs.
conclusionThe superior audiologic performance of and user satisfaction with HAs compared to PSAPs support their continued preference for hearing rehabilitation. Although PSAPs offer a more affordable option, they may not meet the needs of individuals with hearing loss, particularly in terms of high-frequency gain and speech perception.
trial registrationiCreaT Identifier: C220078.
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.