ArticlePloS one2026
Outcomes of real-ear measurement-based fitting in unilateral hearing aid users: Influence of contralateral hearing.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReal-ear measurement (REM) is commonly used to verify hearing aid fittings; however, its added benefit over non-REM fitting in unilateral users and the influence of contralateral ear hearing remain unclear. In this retrospective study, we compared short-term audiometric and patient-reported outcomes between an REM-based fitting pathway and a manufacturer-first-fit pathway followed by routine clinical fine-tuning in unilateral hearing-aid users, and examined associations with contralateral-ear hearing.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 105 unilateral hearing aid users with 3 months of follow-up (REM: n = 60; non-REM: n = 45). Baseline measures included pure-tone averages (PTA4) of the aided ear (i.e., the ear fitted with the hearing aid) and contralateral ear (i.e., the opposite ear), as well as the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE). Outcomes included sound-field functional gain (ΔPTA4), achievement of ≥10 dB gain, change in HHIE (ΔHHIE; responder ≥18-point reduction), and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) scores at 3 months. Group comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests, and multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to adjust for demographic and audiometric covariates. Associations between contralateral ear hearing and outcomes were examined using correlation and subgroup analyses.
resultsBaseline characteristics were generally comparable between groups, although fitted side differed. At 3 months, mean functional gain was 11.0 ± 10.6 dB HL in the REM group and 9.1 ± 10.1 dB HL in the non-REM group (p = 0.2145). Mean ΔHHIE was 25.7 ± 30.3 and 32.9 ± 28.6 points (p = 0.1680), and mean IOI-HA scores were 24.4 ± 6.7 and 23.9 ± 5.9, respectively (p = 0.9492). In adjusted analyses, the REM-based fitting pathway was not associated with ΔHHIE (β = 1.97; 95% CI, -3.12 to 7.06) or 3-month IOI-HA score (β = 0.32; 95% CI, -2.23 to 2.86). Worse contralateral-ear PTA4 was associated with greater HHIE improvement (r = 0.389, p < 0.001).
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort of unilateral hearing-aid users, an REM-based fitting pathway was not associated with statistically significant 3-month audiometric or patient-reported outcome differences compared with manufacturer first-fit followed by routine fine-tuning; this does not establish equivalence or isolate the effect of REM. Contralateral-ear hearing was associated with perceived handicap improvement and may be relevant to outcome interpretation and counseling.
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.