Systematic review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids

References

• Arlinger A, Billermark E, Oberg M Lunner T, Hellgren J. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1998; 27:51-61.
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger A, Billermark E. One year follow-up of users of a digital hearing aid. Br J Audiol 1999; 33:223-32.
   Google Scholar
• Berninger E, Karlsson KK. Clinical study of Widex Senso on first-time hearing aid users. Scand Audiol 1999; 28:117-25.
   Google Scholar
• Bille M, Jensen A-M, Kjoerbol E, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Nielsen H. Clinical study of a digital vs an analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1999; 28:127-35.
   Google Scholar
• Boymans M, Dreschler WA, Schoneveld P, Verschuure H. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. Audiology 1999;38:99-108.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC. Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane’s agenda. BMJ 1992;305:786-8.
   Google Scholar
• Davis A, Spencer H, Paulson J. Cost implications in setting a target for hearing aid provision in England and Wales. Report of MRC Institute of Hearing Research, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Davis A, Bamford J, Ramkalawan T, Forshaw M, Wright S. A critical review of the role of neonatal screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. Health Technology Assessment 1997; 1: 10.
   Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7: 177-88.
   Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Adult Hearing Fittings and Service: Scientific and Technical Report. Report to the Department of Health, November 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Hecox K, Punch J. The impact of digital technology on the selection and fitting of hearing aids. Amer J Otol 1988; (Suppl. 9): 77-85.
   Google Scholar
• Hickson LMH. Compression amplification in hearing aids. Am J Audiol 1994;3:51-65.
   Google Scholar
• Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 1996; 17:1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Joore M. Hearing aid fitting in hearing-impaired adults proves to be a very cost-effective intervention. Oral presentation to EHIMA ‘The World of Hearing’ Conference, 27-28 May 1999, Brussels (http://www.chima.com/pro-gram.htm).
   Google Scholar
• Lamden KH, St Leger AS, Raveglia J. Hearing aids: value for money and health gain. J Public Health Med 1995; 17:445-9.
   Google Scholar
• Leeuw AR, Drcschler WA. Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics. Audiology 1991; 30:330-44.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt H. Digital hearing aids: a tutorial review. J Rehab Res 1987;24:7-20.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt H, Neuman A, Sullivan J. Studies with digital hearing aids. Acta Otolaryng 1990; 469 (Suppl.): 57-69.
   Google Scholar
• Moore BCJ, Perceptual Consequences of Cochlear Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Murray DJ, Hanson JV, Application of digital signal processing to hearing aids: a critical survey. J Am Acad Audiol 1992; 3:145-52.
   Google Scholar
• Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS et al. Quality of life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113:188-94.
   Google Scholar
• Newman CW, Sandridge SA. Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 115-28.
   Google Scholar
• National Insitute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the Use of Digital Hearing Aids. Technology Appraisal Guidance. London: NICE, 2000 (http//www.nice.nhs.uk).
   Google Scholar
• Palmer CV, Killion MC, Wilber LA, Ballad WJ. Comparison of two hearing aid receiver-amplifier combinations using sound quality judgements. Ear Hear 1995; 1 6:587-98.
   Google Scholar
• Parving A, Sorup Sorensen M, Carver K Christensen B, Sibelle P, Vesterager V. Hearing instruments and health technology - an evaluation. Scand Audiol 1997; 26:231-9.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves DJ, Alborz A, Hickson FS, Bamford JM. Community provision of hearing aids and related audiology services. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4:1-120.
   Google Scholar
• Ricketts T, Dhar S. Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10:180-9.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R.I, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408-12.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson J, Sutton J, Cooper NJ. The Use of Bone Anchored Hearing Aids. Trent Institute for Health Services Research, December 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Walden BE. Towards a model of clinical trials for substantiating hearing aid user-benefit. Am J Audiol 1997;6:13-24.
   Google Scholar
• Wesselkamp, M. Clinical study of PRISMA BTE at the University of Linkoping. (Siemens technical report 15 Mar 99), 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Westermann S, Sandlin R. Digital signal processing: benefits and expectations. High Performance Hearing Solutions 1997; 2:56-9.
   Google Scholar
• Yund EW, Simon HJ, Efron R. Speech discrimination with an 8-channel compression hearing aid and conventional aids in background of speech-band noise. J Rehab Res Dev 1987; 24: 161-80.
   Google Scholar