Reported Hearing Outcome Measures Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Scoping Review.

Background Evidence on hearing outcome measures when assessing hearing preservation following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for adults with vestibular schwannoma (VS) has not previously been collated in a structured review. Objective The objective of the present study was to perform a scoping review of the evidence regarding the choice of hearing outcomes and other methodological characteristics following SRS for adults with VS. Methods The protocol was registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search of five online databases revealed 1,591 studies, 247 of which met the inclusion criteria. Results The majority of studies ( n = 213, 86%) were retrospective cohort or case series with the remainder ( n = 34, 14%) prospective cohort. Pure-tone audiometry and speech intelligibility were included in 222 (90%) and 158 (64%) studies, respectively, often summarized within a classification scheme and lacking procedural details. Fifty-nine (24%) studies included self-report measures. The median duration of follow-up, when reported, was 43 months (interquartile range: 29, 4-150). Conclusion Evidence on hearing disability after SRS for VS is based on low-quality studies which are inherently susceptible to bias. This review has highlighted an urgent need for a randomized controlled trial assessing hearing outcomes in patients with VS managed with radiosurgery or radiological observation. Similarly, consensus and coproduction of a core outcome set to determine relevant hearing and communication outcome domains is required. This will ensure that patient priorities, including communication abilities in the presence of background noise and reduced participation restrictions, are addressed.

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit.

Hearing aid verification with real-ear measurement (REM) is recommended in clinical practice. Improvements, over time, in accuracy of manufacturers' initial fit mean the benefit of routine REM for new adult users is unclear. This registered, double-blinded, randomized, mixed-methods clinical trial aimed to (i) determine whether new adult hearing aid users prefer initial or real-ear fit and (ii) investigate the reasons for preferences. New adult hearing aid users (n = 45) were each fitted with two programs: the initial fit and real-ear fit, both with adjustments based on immediate feedback from the patient. Participants were asked to complete daily paired-comparisons of the two programs with a magnitude estimation of the preference, one for each of clarity/comfort in quiet/noise as well as overall preference. The results revealed gain adjustment requests were low in number and small in magnitude. Deviation from NAL-NL2 targets (after adjustment for a 65 dB SPL input) was close to zero, except at high frequencies where real-ear fits were around 3 dB closer to target. There was no difference in clarity ratings between programs, but comfort ratings favored initial fit. Overall, 10 participants (22%) expressed a preference for real-ear fit. Reasons for preference were primarily based on comfort with the initial fit and clarity with real-ear fit. It may be acceptable to fit new adult users with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without the need for REMs, if the primary outcome of interest is user preference. It remains to be seen if the findings generalize to other fitting software, other outcome measures and more severe hearing loss.

Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss. DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Remote hearing screening and assessment may improve access to, and uptake of, hearing care. This review, the most comprehensive to date, aimed to (i) identify and assess functionality of remote hearing assessment tools on smartphones and online platforms, (ii) determine if assessed tools were also evaluated in peer-reviewed publications and (iii) report accuracy of existing validation data. DESIGN: Protocol was registered in INPLASY and reported according to PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 187 remote hearing assessment tools (using tones, speech, self-report or a combination) and 101 validation studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality, functionality, bias and applicability of each app were assessed by at least two authors. RESULTS: Assessed tools showed considerable variability in functionality. Twenty-two (12%) tools were peer-reviewed and 14 had acceptable functionality. The validation results and their quality varied greatly, largely depending on the category of the tool. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and reliability of most tools are unknown. Tone-producing tools provide approximate hearing thresholds but have calibration and background noise issues. Speech and self-report tools are less affected by these issues but mostly do not provide an estimated pure tone audiogram. Predicting audiograms using filtered language-independent materials could be a universal solution.

Is the outcome of fitting hearing aids to adults affected by whether an audiogram-based prescription formula is individually applied? A systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aims to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's audiogram-based prescription results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methods of this review are reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. On 23 August 2020, eight different databases were systematically searched without any restrictions: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare and Academic Search Premier. To ensure that this review includes the most recent evidence, the searches will be repeated at the final write-up stage. The population of interest of this review will be adults with any degree or type of hearing loss. The studies should compare hearing aids programmed using an audiogram-based prescription (and verified in the real ear) with those not programmed on the basis of the individual's audiogram. The primary outcome of interest is consumers' listening preferences. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life, self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility of words and sentences in quiet and noisy situations, sound quality ratings and adverse events are the secondary outcomes of interest. Both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The quality of each individual study and the overall evidence will be assessed using Downs and Black's checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies, so no ethical approval is required. The review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197232.

Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review, the first on this topic, aimed to investigate if probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improves outcomes in adults. The review was preregistered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. After assessing more than 1,420 records from seven databases, six experimental studies (published between 2012 and 2019) met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome of interest (hearing-specific, health-related quality of life) was not reported in any study. There were moderate and statistically significant positive effects of probe-tube real-ear measurement (REM), compared with the manufacturer's initial fit, on speech intelligibility in quiet settings (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.59) and user's final preference (proportion difference: 52.2%). There were small but statistically significant positive effects of REM on self-reported listening abilities (SMD: 0.22) and speech intelligibility in noise (SMD: 0.15). The quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from high to very low. The findings show that REMs improve outcomes statistically, but this is based on a small number of studies and a limited number of participants. It is currently unclear if the benefits are of material importance because minimum clinically important differences have not been established for most of the outcomes. Ultimately, there needs to be a cost-effectiveness analysis to show that statistically significant benefits, which exceed the minimum clinically important difference, are worth the cost involved.

One year on: an updated systematic review of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and audio-vestibular symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to systematically review the literature to December 2020, in order to provide a timely summary of evidence on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and audio-vestibular symptoms. DESIGN: The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The methods were developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Heath quality assessment tools. STUDY SAMPLE: After rejecting 850 records, 28 case reports/series and 28 cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There are multiple reports of hearing loss (e.g. sudden sensorineural), tinnitus and rotatory vertigo in adults having a wide range of COVID-19 symptom severity. The pooled estimate of prevalence based primarily on retrospective recall of symptoms, was 7.6% (CI: 2.5-15.1), 14.8% (CI: 6.3-26.1) and 7.2% (CI: 0.01-26.4), for hearing loss, tinnitus and rotatory vertigo, respectively. However, these could be an over-estimate because it was not always clear that studies report a change in symptom. CONCLUSION: There are multiple reports of audio-vestibular symptoms associated with COVID-19. However, there is a dearth of high-quality studies comparing COVID-19 cases and controls. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number CRD42020227038).

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

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.

Does coronavirus affect the audio-vestibular system? A rapid systematic review.

Objective: This rapid systematic review investigated audio-vestibular symptoms associated with coronavirus.Design: The protocol for the rapid review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and the review methods were developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute of Heath quality assessment tools.Study sample: After rejecting more than 2300 records, there were five case reports and two cross-sectional studies that met the inclusion criteria.Results: No records of audio-vestibular symptoms were reported with the earlier types of coronavirus (i.e. severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] and Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]). Reports of hearing loss, tinnitus, and vertigo have rarely been reported in individuals who tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2.Conclusion: Reports of audio-vestibular symptoms in confirmed COVID-19 cases are few, with mostly minor symptoms, and the studies are of poor quality. Emphasis over time is likely to shift from life-threatening concerns to longer-term health-related consequences such as audio-vestibular dysfunction. High-quality studies are needed to investigate the acute effects of COVID-19, as well as for understanding long-term risks, on the audio-vestibular system. Review registration: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020184932).

Direct-to-Consumer Hearing Devices: Capabilities, Costs, and Cosmetics.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) hearing devices can be purchased without consulting a hearing health professional. This project aims to compare 28 DTC devices with the most popular hearing aid supplied by the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). The comparison was based on technical performance, cosmetic acceptability, and the ability to match commonly used gain and slope targets. Electroacoustic performance was evaluated in a 2-cc coupler. Match to prescription target for both gain and slope was measured on a Knowles Electronic Manikin for Acoustic Research using a mild and also a moderate sloping hearing loss. Using an online blinded paired comparison of each DTC and the NHS reference device, 126 participants (50 were hearing aid users and 76 were nonhearing aid users) assessed the cosmetic appearance and rated their willingness-to-wear the DTC devices. The results revealed that higher purchase prices were generally associated with a better match to prescribed gain-frequency response shapes, lower distortion, wider bandwidth, better cosmetic acceptability, and higher willingness-to-wear. On every parameter measured, there were devices that performed worse than the NHS device. Most of the devices were rated lower in terms of aesthetic design than the NHS device and provided gain-frequency responses and maximum output levels that were markedly different from those prescribed for commonly encountered audiograms. Because of the absence or inflexibility of most of the devices, they have the potential to deliver poor sound quality and uncomfortably loud sounds. The challenge for manufacturers is to develop low-cost products with cosmetic appeal and appropriate electroacoustic characteristics.