ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2026
Management of Functional Hearing Difficulties Using Low-Gain Amplification: Case Reports on Auditory Processing Evaluations.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 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: Functional hearing difficulties are common among both the civilian population and military personnel with hearing thresholds less than 25 dB HL, particularly those exposed to blasts or with mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs). These individuals often report significant hearing challenges in noisy environments, despite "normal" audiometric thresholds. Low-gain hearing aids (LGHAs) have emerged as a promising intervention for managing these difficulties. Purpose: Describe the decision-making process for identifying a candidate for LGHAs and evaluate the outcomes. Research Design: Case reports. Study Sample: Three case reports of service members: two male and one female. Data Collection and Analysis: Three case reports who underwent auditory processing evaluations are presented to illustrate clinical decision-making and outcomes for patients with hearing thresholds less than 25 dB HL and functional hearing difficulties, highlighting the potential benefits and limitations of LGHAs. Results: Patient 1 exhibited improvement in functional hearing difficulties supported by standardized questionnaire results. Patient 2 initially struggled with hearing aid use but experienced significant benefit after device adjustments and counseling, as evidenced by increased usage and improved handicap scores. Patient 3, whose difficulties were attributed primarily to comorbid conditions rather than auditory system abnormalities, was referred for management of these conditions before any audiological intervention. Conclusions: These cases highlight the importance of individualized assessment and treatment strategies for optimizing outcomes. LGHAs are a feasible intervention for individuals with "normal" hearing thresholds who experience significant communication difficulties, particularly in challenging listening environments. These devices can provide measurable benefits, such as improved perceived speech understanding and reduced hearing handicap, making them a valuable option for this population. Clinical Relevance Statement: LGHAs offer a viable and measurable treatment option for patients with "normal" hearing thresholds who experience functional hearing difficulties, especially in noise. These case reports demonstrate how individualized assessment and device counseling can lead to improved communication outcomes, encouraging clinicians to consider amplification as part of a broader management strategy for this underserved population.
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.