Clinical Study of Hearing Instruments: A Cross-sectional Longitudinal Audit Based on Consumer Experiences:Estudio clinico de auxiliares auditivos: Revision transversal de revisión basado en las experiencias del consumidor

References

• Louis T A, Lavori P W, Bailar J C, Polan-Sky M. Crossover and self-controlled designs in clinical research. N Engl J Med 1984; 1: 24–31
   Google Scholar
• Andersen T, Pedersen F, Parving A, Lyregaard P E. Procedure for clinical testing of hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1998; 27: 249–254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S. Clinical assessment of modern hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1998; 27(Suppl 49)50–53
   Google Scholar
• Hagerman B. Minimum Nordic requirements for clinical testing of hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1999; 20: 102–116
   Google Scholar
• Noble W. Hearing aid use and benefit. Self-assessment of hearing and related function, W Noble. Whurr, London 1998; 86–143
   Google Scholar
• Banta D. Technologies on trial. Odyssey 1998; 5(2)56–57
   Google Scholar
• Cox R M, Alexander G C. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176–186
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8: 27–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ringdahl A, Eriksson-Mangold M, Andersson G. Psychometric evaluation of the Gothenburg profile for measurement of experienced hearing disability and handicap: applications with new hearing aid candidates and experienced hearing aid users. Br J Audiol 1998; 32: 375–385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 80–101
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User's Questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 67–79
   Google Scholar
• Cox R M, Alexander G C. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 306–320
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parving A. The value of speech audiometry in hearing aid rehabilitation. Scand Audiol 1991; 20: 159–164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO 3. 89-3. Acoustics–reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 3: reference equivalent threshold force levels for pure tones and bone vibrators. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva 1994
   Google Scholar
• ISO 389. Acoustics–standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone air-conduction audiometers. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva 1991
   Google Scholar
• ISO 7566. Acoustics–standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone bone conduction audiometers. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva 1987
   Google Scholar
• ISO 8253-1. Acoustics–audiometric test methods. basic pure-tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardization, Part I 1989
   Google Scholar
• McCandless G A, Lyregaard P E. Prescription of gain/output (POGO) for hearing aids. Hear Instr 1983; 34(1)16–18
   Google Scholar
• Lyregaard P E. POGO and the theory behind. Hartvig: Hearing aid fitting. Theoretical and practical views Copenhagen: 13th Danavox Symposium 1988, J Jensen, 1988; 81–96
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biering-Sørensen M, Riess H, Boisen G, Parving A. A clinical comparative investigation of a non-linear versus linear hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1995; 24: 125–132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parving A, Sørensen M S, Carver K, Christensen B, Sibelle P, Vesterager V. Hearing instruments and health technology–an evaluation. Scand Audiol 1997; 26: 231–239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson P, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Sieck L, Christensen B. A double-blind cross-over study of a non-linear hearing aid. Audiology 1997; 36: 325–338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bille M, Jensen A M, Kjaerbol E, Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Nielsen H. Clinical study of a digital vs an analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1999; 28: 127–135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welinder R, Kjaerbøl E, Christensen B, Lansten R, Sørensen M S, Sibelle P. Klinisk kontrolleret dobbeltblindt overkrydsningsforsøg af et høreapparat med en-eller to-mikrofonsteknik. Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Internal report Copenhagen 1999
   Google Scholar
• Parving A, Sibelle P. An audit of hearing rehabilitation within the health service–past and present. Scand Audiol 1995; 24: 33–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parving A, Salomon G. Audiology in Denmark. Otolaryngology in Denmark 1899-1999, C B Pedersen, P Bonding. Danish Society of Otolaryngology, Aarhus 1999; 115–123
   Google Scholar
• Jerlvall L, Almquist B, Ovegaard A, Arlinger S. Clinical trial of in-the-ear hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1983; 12: 63–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Türk R. A clinical comparison between behind-the-ear and in-the-ear hearing aids. Audiol Acoust 1986; 25: 78–86
   Google Scholar
• Henrichsen J, Noring E, Christensen B, Pedersen F, Parving A. In-the-ear hearing aids. The use and benefit in the elderly hearing-impaired. Scand Audiol 1988; 17: 209–212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parving A, Boisen G. In-the-canal hearing aids. Their use by and benefit for the younger and elderly hearing-impaired. Scand Audiol 1990; 19: 25–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May A E, Upfold L J, Battaglia J A. The advantage and disadvantage of ITC, ITE, BTE hearing aids: diary and interview reports from elderly users. Br J Audiol 1990; 24: 301–309
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parving A, Philip B. Use and benefit of hearing aids in the tenth decade–and beyond. Audiology 1991; 30: 61–69
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henrichsen J, Noring E, Lindemann L, Christensen B, Parving A. The use and benefit of in-the-ear hearing aids. A four-year follow-up examination. Scand Audiol 1991; 20: 55–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchwald C, Pedersen F, Parving A. High-frequency amplification with ITC-HA and BTE-HA. A comparative investigation. Scand Audiol 1991; 20: 117–120
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sullivan J A, Levitt H, Hwang J Y, Hennessey A. An experimental comparison of four hearing aid prescription methods. Ear Hear 1988; 9: 22–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venema T. Compression for clinicians. Singular, San Diego and London 1998
   Google Scholar
• Peters R W, Moore B CJ, Glasberg B R, Stone M A. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 2000; 34: 21–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barfod J. Multichannel compression hearing aids: experiments and consideration on clinical applicability. Scand Audiol 1978; 7(Suppl 6)315–340
   Google Scholar
• Moore B JC, Glasberg B R. A comparison of two-channel and single channel compression aids. Audiology 1986; 25: 210–226
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore B CJ, Johnson J S, Clark T M, Pluvinage V. Evaluation of a dual-channel full dynamic range compression system for people with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 349–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson D, Clark T M, Johnson J S. Patient experiences with multi band full dynamic range compression. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 320–330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight J. A subjective evaluation of K-Amp versus linear hearing aids. Hear Instr 1992; 43(10)8–11
   Google Scholar
• Plomp R. Noise, amplification and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 2–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad L M, Seewald R C, Cornelisse L E, Shantz J. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 117–126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenstad L M, Pumford J, Seewald R C, Cornelisse L E. Comparison of linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing aid circuits II: aided loudness measures. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 32–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B CJ. Perceptual consequences of cochlear hearing loss and their implications for the design of hearings aids. Ear Hear 1996; 17: 133–160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villchur E. Multichannel compression in hearing aids. Hair cells and hearing aids, C I Berlin. Singular, London 1996; 113–124
   Google Scholar
• Elberling C. A new digital hearing instrument. 1996; 38–39, Hear Rev;
   Google Scholar
• Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C. A digital filter bank hearing aid: three digital signal processing algorithms–user preference and performance. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 373–387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen C, Topholm J. Fitting a wide dynamic range compression hearing instrument using real ear threshold data. A new strategy. High performance hearing solution, N S Kock, K Strohn, 1997; 37–39, Marketing and technology. Hear Rev;(Suppl)
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D. Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to?. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7: 377–395
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elberling C, Parving A. Otolaryngology in Denmark 1988-1999. Åarhus and Copenhagen: Dansk Selskab for Otolaryngology Hoved og Halskirurgi. Hearing aids at the turn of the new century, C Petersen, P Brahe Bonding, 1999; 125–136
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger S, Billermark E, Öberg M, Lunner T, Hellgren J. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol 1998; 27: 51–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S, Billermark E. One year follow-up of users of a digital hearing aid. Br J Audiol 1999; 33: 223–232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker C, Dillon H. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 127–139
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Souza P E, Bishop R D. Improving speech audibility with wide dynamic range compression in listeners with severe sensorineural loss. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 461–470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boymans M, Dreschler W A, Schoneveld P, Verschuure H. Clinical evaluation of a full-digital in-the-ear hearing instrument. Audiology 1999; 38: 99–108
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kam A CS, Wong L LN. Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 445–457
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berninger E, Karlsson K K. Clinical study of Widex Senso on first-time hearing aid users. Scand Audiol 1999; 28: 117–125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente M, Fabry D A, Potts L G. Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audiol 1995; 6: 440–449
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valente M, Sweetow R, Potts L G, Bingea B. Digital versus analog signal processing: effect of directional microphone. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 133–150
   Google Scholar
• Preves D A, Sammeth C A, Wynnet M K. Field trial evaluations of a switched directional/omnidirectional in-the-ear hearing instrument. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 273–284
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricketts T, Dhar S. Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 180–189
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wouters J, Litière L, van Wieringen A. Speech intelligibility in noisy environments with one-and two-microphone hearing aids. Audiology 1999; 38: 91–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pumford J M, Seewald R C, Scollie S D, Jenstad L M. Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 23–35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valente M, Schuchman G, Potts L G, Beck L B. Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 181–189
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuk F K, Ludvigsen C. Variables affecting the use of prescriptive formulae to fit modern nonlinear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 458–465
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCombe A. The hearing aid revolution. ENT News 2000; 8(6)13
   Google Scholar
• Brooks D N. Counselling and its effect on hearing aid users. Scand Audiol 1979; 8: 101–107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brooks D N. Use of post aural aids by National Hearing Health Service patients. Br J Audiol 1981; 15: 79–86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taubman L B, Palmer C V, Durrant J D, Pratt S. Accuracy of hearing aid use time as reported by experienced hearing aid wearers. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 299–305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bille M, Jensen J H, Johnsen T, et al. Rapport vedrørende konventionelle høreapparater i forhold til digitale høreapparater i det østdanske område. Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen 1998
   Google Scholar