Clinical trial NCT05621798 - References

Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral — Quantifying the Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Real-Ear Measurements (REM) for Hearing Aid Fitting

Citation(s)

•   Aarts NL, Caffee CS
  Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol. 2005 May;44(5):293-301. doi: 10.1080/14992020500057830.
•   Aazh H, Moore BC, Prasher D
  Real ear measurement methods for open fit hearing aids: modified pressure concurrent equalization (MPCE) versus modified pressure stored equalization (MPSE). Int J Audiol. 2012 Feb;51(2):103-7. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.609182. Epub 2011 Oct 24.
•   Aazh H, Moore BC
  The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Sep;18(8):653-64. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18.8.3.
•   Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R
  Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012 Nov-Dec;23(10):768-78. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.23.10.3.
•   Almufarrij I, Dillon H, Munro KJ
  Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trends Hear. 2021 Jan-Dec;25:2331216521999563. doi: 10.1177/2331216521999563.
•   Almufarrij I, Munro KJ, Dillon H
  Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adult hearing aid users? A protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 19;10(7):e038113. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038113.
•   Denys S, Latzel M, Francart T, Wouters J
  A preliminary investigation into hearing aid fitting based on automated real-ear measurements integrated in the fitting software: test-retest reliability, matching accuracy and perceptual outcomes. Int J Audiol. 2019 Mar;58(3):132-140. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1543958. Epub 2018 Dec 4.
•   Hawkings DP, Cook JA
  Hearing aid software predictive gain values: How accurate are they? The Hearing Journal. 2003; 56(7): 26-34.
•   Mueller HG, Picou EM
  Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hearing Journal. 2010; 63(5): 27-32.
•   Scollie S, Ching TY, Seewald R, Dillon H, Britton L, Steinberg J, Corcoran J
  Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. Int J Audiol. 2010 Jan;49 Suppl 1:S49-63. doi: 10.3109/14992020903148038.
•   Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D
  Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018 Sep;29(8):706-721. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17005.
•   Walravens E, Keidser G, Hickson L
  Consistency of Hearing Aid Setting Preference in Simulated Real-World Environments: Implications for Trainable Hearing Aids. Trends Hear. 2020 Jan-Dec;24:2331216520933392. doi: 10.1177/2331216520933392.

Quantifying the Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Real-Ear Measurements (REM) for Hearing Aid Fitting

Details for clinical trial NCT05621798