Comparison of hearing-aid effectiveness based on user-operated versus traditional audiometry: a randomised clinical trial.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY International Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1080/14992027.2024.2434897
Carl Pedersen, Ellen Raben Pedersen, Søren Laugesen, Raul Sanchez-Lopez, Jacob Nielsen, Chris Bang Sørensen, Jesper Hvass Schmidt
{"title":"Comparison of hearing-aid effectiveness based on user-operated versus traditional audiometry: a randomised clinical trial.","authors":"Carl Pedersen, Ellen Raben Pedersen, Søren Laugesen, Raul Sanchez-Lopez, Jacob Nielsen, Chris Bang Sørensen, Jesper Hvass Schmidt","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2024.2434897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate whether hearing-aid fitting based on user-operated audiometry is non-inferior to hearing-aid fitting based on traditional audiometry.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, took place at Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. In a first visit, participants were tested with traditional audiometry as well as user-operated audiometry and filled in the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) at baseline. Next, they were randomly divided to receive hearing aids fitted based on either the user-operated (UAud group) or the traditional audiometry (control group) hearing thresholds. After three months of hearing-aid use, participants underwent an aided hearing-in-noise test and completed the SSQ12 again, as well as an additional battery of outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>A total of 215 adults with sensorineural hearing impairment referred for bilateral hearing-aid fitting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The before-after change in SSQ12 total scores was not different between the groups as the interaction between test times and groups was -0.06 (95% CI -0.56 to 0.44, <i>p</i> = 0.811).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that the HA effectiveness in the UAud group was non-inferior to those observed in the control group. This implies that integrating user-operated audiometry into the clinical system is feasible, offering potential personnel time savings without compromising patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05043207).</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2434897","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether hearing-aid fitting based on user-operated audiometry is non-inferior to hearing-aid fitting based on traditional audiometry.

Design: This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, took place at Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. In a first visit, participants were tested with traditional audiometry as well as user-operated audiometry and filled in the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) at baseline. Next, they were randomly divided to receive hearing aids fitted based on either the user-operated (UAud group) or the traditional audiometry (control group) hearing thresholds. After three months of hearing-aid use, participants underwent an aided hearing-in-noise test and completed the SSQ12 again, as well as an additional battery of outcome measures.

Study sample: A total of 215 adults with sensorineural hearing impairment referred for bilateral hearing-aid fitting.

Results: The before-after change in SSQ12 total scores was not different between the groups as the interaction between test times and groups was -0.06 (95% CI -0.56 to 0.44, p = 0.811).

Conclusions: The findings suggest that the HA effectiveness in the UAud group was non-inferior to those observed in the control group. This implies that integrating user-operated audiometry into the clinical system is feasible, offering potential personnel time savings without compromising patient outcomes.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05043207).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于用户操作与传统听力学的助听器效果比较:一项随机临床试验。
目的:探讨基于用户操作听力学的助听器验配是否优于基于传统听力学的助听器验配。设计:这项非劣效性随机临床试验在丹麦欧登塞大学医院进行。在第一次访问中,参与者接受了传统听力学和用户操作听力学的测试,并在基线上填写了语音、空间和听力质量量表(SSQ12)。接下来,他们被随机分为两组,分别接受基于用户操作(UAud组)或传统听力学(对照组)听力阈值的助听器。在使用助听器三个月后,参与者接受了一项噪音辅助听力测试,并再次完成了SSQ12,以及额外的一系列结果测量。研究样本:共有215名成人感音神经性听力障碍患者接受双侧助听器安装。结果:SSQ12总分的前后变化在组间无差异,测试次数与组间交互作用为-0.06 (95% CI为-0.56 ~ 0.44,p = 0.811)。结论:UAud组的HA疗效不低于对照组。这意味着将用户操作的听力学集成到临床系统中是可行的,可以在不影响患者预后的情况下节省潜在的人员时间。试验注册:该试验在ClinicalTrials.gov注册(NCT05043207)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Audiology
International Journal of Audiology 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
133
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Audiology is committed to furthering development of a scientifically robust evidence base for audiology. The journal is published by the British Society of Audiology, the International Society of Audiology and the Nordic Audiological Society.
期刊最新文献
Exploring factors influencing hearing Aid uptake: insights from a Korean population with unilateral and bilateral hearing loss. Parent-led ear health checks at home for children with complex needs pilot-project: a new approach to improving access to ear health. Correction. Sentence intelligibility in noise in children: development of the LIST-k. Predictors of hearing loss disability: a multinational study using the ICF core set.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1