Dataset Information

Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users? A protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Using a probe-tube microphone to measure and adjust the real-ear performance of the hearing aid to match the prescription target is recommended and widely used in clinical practice. Hearing aid fitting software can approximately match the amplification characteristics of the hearing aid to the prescription without real-ear measurements (REMs), but using REM improves the match to the prescribed target. What is unclear is if the improved match results in a better patient-reported outcome. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether the use of REM improves patient-reported outcomes in adult hearing aid users. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review's methods are in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL via Cochrane Library will be searched to identify relevant studies. The review's population of interest will include adults with any degree of sensorineural or mixed hearing loss who have been prescribed with acoustic hearing aids. The included studies should compare REM fitting to the initial fit provided by the manufacturer's fitting software. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life is the primary outcome but secondary outcomes include self-reported listening ability, speech recognition scores, generic health-related quality of life, hours of use, number of required follow-up sessions and adverse events. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The risk of bias in the included studies will be evaluated using Down and Black's checklist. The quality of the overall evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval will not be sought because this systematic review will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies. Review results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020166074.

SUBMITTER: Almufarrij I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7371126 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users? A protocol for a systematic review.

Almufarrij Ibrahim I Munro Kevin J KJ Dillon Harvey H

BMJ open 20200719 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Using a probe-tube microphone to measure and adjust the real-ear performance of the hearing aid to match the prescription target is recommended and widely used in clinical practice. Hearing aid fitting software can approximately match the amplification characteristics of the hearing aid to the prescription without real-ear measurements (REMs), but using REM improves the match to the prescribed target. What is unclear is if the improved match results in a better patient-repor ...[more]

PMID: 32690533

Similar Datasets

Project description:Measurement of outcomes has become increasingly important to assess the benefit of audiologic rehabilitation, including hearing aids, in adults. Data from questionnaires, however, are based on retrospective recall of events and experiences, and often can be inaccurate. Questionnaires also do not capture the daily variation that typically occurs in relevant events and experiences. Clinical researchers in a variety of fields have turned to a methodology known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess quotidian experiences associated with health problems. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using EMA to obtain real-time responses from hearing aid users describing their experiences with challenging hearing situations.This study required three phases: (1) develop EMA methodology to assess hearing difficulties experienced by hearing aid users; (2) make use of focus groups to refine the methodology; and (3) test the methodology with 24 hearing aid users. Phase 3 participants carried a personal digital assistant 12 hr per day for 2 weeks. The personal digital assistant alerted participants to respond to questions four times a day. Each assessment started with a question to determine whether a hearing problem was experienced since the last alert. If "yes," then up to 23 questions (depending on contingent response branching) obtained details about the situation. If "no," then up to 11 questions obtained information that would help to explain why hearing was not a problem. Each participant completed the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) both before and after the 2-week EMA testing period to evaluate for "reactivity" (exacerbation of self-perceived hearing problems that could result from the repeated assessments).Participants responded to the alerts with a 77% compliance rate, providing a total of 991 completed momentary assessments (mean = 43.1 per participant). A substantial amount of data were obtained with the methodology. It is important to note that participants reported a "hearing problem situation since the last alert" 37.6% of the time (372 responses). The most common problem situation involved "face-to-face conversation" (53.8% of the time). The next most common problem situation was "telephone conversation" (17.2%) followed by "TV, radio, iPod, etc." (15.3%), "environmental sounds" (9.7%), and "movies, lecture, etc." (4.0%). Comparison of pre- and post-EMA mean HHIE scores revealed no significant difference (p > 0.05), indicating that reactivity did not occur for this group. It should be noted, however, that 37.5% of participants reported a greater sense of awareness regarding their hearing loss and use of hearing aids.Results showed participants were compliant, gave positive feedback, and did not demonstrate reactivity based on pre- and post-HHIE scores. We conclude that EMA methodology is feasible with patients who use hearing aids and could potentially inform hearing healthcare (HHC) services. The next step is to develop and evaluate EMA protocols that provide detailed daily patient information to audiologists at each stage of HHC. The advantages of such an approach would be to obtain real-life outcome measures, and to determine within- and between-day variability in outcomes and associated factors. Such information at present is not available from patients who seek and use HHC services.

Project description:ImportanceHearing loss is a highly prevalent condition with multiple negative associated outcomes, yet few persons with hearing loss have hearing aids (HAs). Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) could be an alternative low-cost solution to HAs, but data are lacking on the performance of PSAPs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of a PSAP by comparing its performance with that of a basic HA and a premium HA in participants with mild, moderate, and moderately severe hearing impairment.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, single-institution cohort study was performed with a total of 56 participants, including 19 with mild hearing loss, 20 with moderate hearing loss, and 17 with moderately severe hearing loss. All participants underwent 4 clinical hearing tests with each of the PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA, and all completed an evaluative questionnaire.InterventionsAll hearing devices (PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA) were applied by a clinician to prevent bias and order effects; participants were blinded to the device in use, and sequence of devices was randomized.Main outcomes and measuresThe study used the Korean version of the hearing in noise test, the speech intelligibility in noise test, listening effort measurement using a dual-task paradigm, pupillometry, and a self-rating questionnaire regarding sound quality and preference. These tests were administered under the following 4 hearing conditions: unaided hearing, use of PSAP, use of basic HA, and use of premium HA.ResultsThe study included 56 participants with a mean age of 56 years (interquartile range, 48-59 years); 29 (52%) were women. In the mild and moderate hearing loss groups, there was no meaningful difference between PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA for speech perception (Cohen d = 0.06-1.05), sound quality (Cohen d = 0.06-0.71), listening effort (Cohen d = 0.10-0.92), and user preference (PSAP, 41%; basic HA, 28%; premium HA, 31%). However, for the patients with moderately severe hearing loss, the premium HA had better performance across most tests (Cohen d = 0.60-1.59), and 70% of participants preferred to use the premium HA.Conclusions and relevanceThe results indicate that basic and premium HAs were not superior to the PSAP in patients with mild to moderate hearing impairment, which suggests that PSAPs might be used as an alternative to HAs in these patient populations. However, if hearing loss is more severe, then HAs, especially premium HAs, should be considered as an option to manage hearing loss.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The objective was to determine self-adjusted output response and speech intelligibility index (SII) in individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss and to measure the effects of prior hearing aid experience. DESIGN:Thirteen hearing aid users and 13 nonusers, with similar group-mean pure-tone thresholds, listened to prerecorded and preprocessed sentences spoken by a man. Starting with a generic level and spectrum, participants adjusted (1) overall level, (2) high-frequency boost, and (3) low-frequency cut. Participants took a speech perception test after an initial adjustment before making a final adjustment. The three self-selected parameters, along with individual thresholds and real-ear-to-coupler differences, were used to compute output levels and SIIs for the starting and two self-adjusted conditions. The values were compared with an NAL second nonlinear threshold-based prescription (NAL-NL2) and, for the hearing aid users, performance of their existing hearing aids. RESULTS:All participants were able to complete the self-adjustment process. The generic starting condition provided outputs (between 2 and 8?kHz) and SIIs that were significantly below those prescribed by NAL-NL2. Both groups increased SII to values that were not significantly different from prescription. The hearing aid users, but not the nonusers, increased high-frequency output and SII significantly after taking the speech perception test. Seventeen of the 26 participants (65%) met an SII criterion of 60% under the generic starting condition. The proportion increased to 23 out of 26 (88%) after the final self-adjustment. Of the 13 hearing aid users, 8 (62%) met the 60% criterion with their existing hearing aids. With the final self-adjustment, 12 out of 13 (92%) met this criterion. CONCLUSIONS:The findings support the conclusion that user self-adjustment of basic amplification characteristics can be both feasible and effective with or without prior hearing aid experience.

Dataset Information

Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users? A protocol for a systematic review.

Publications

Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users? A protocol for a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure