ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Impact of over 6 months of digital hearing aid usage on auditory working memory in acquired severe to profound hearing loss.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. 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
Introduction: Hearing amplification devices provide ample auditory input that can help to decrease the cognitive strain caused by hearing loss. Depending on the kind and severity of hearing loss, using hearing aids has variable effects on auditory working memory. This study looked into the auditory working memory capacity after using hearing aids for more than 6 months. Method: Sixty individuals of a mean age of 53.4 ± 6.07 years with severe to profound hearing loss in the age range of 40-60 years participated. Out of them, 30 individuals with a mean age of 53.5 ± 6.7 were using digital hearing aids and another 30 individuals with a mean age of 53.3 ± 5.4 years were not using a hearing aid. Forward and backward digit span task (DST) and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) were investigated to estimate the auditory working memory capacity. Results: Mean MMSE scores of those individuals with severe to profound hearing loss (53.3 ± 5.43) using (HAU) a hearing aid (25.7 ± 2.97) and individuals not using (NHAU) a hearing aid (22.1 ± 5.11) were compared across each other. The result revealed that the mean MMSE score of HAU was significantly higher than the mean score of NHAU. The mean DST (forward, backward, and total) score of HAU (6.40 ± 1.47) was cosiderably higher than the mean score of NHAU (5.33 ± 1.12). Conclusion: Results showed that mean MMSE and DST scores were higher in the HAU category, but when compared across the gender, no statistical differences were observed. The change in auditory working memory and other cognitive abilities were attributed to the usage duration of the hearing aids.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.