Effects of Hearing Devices for Adults With Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Effects of Hearing Devices for Adults With Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Authors:	Pandey, Preeti^1,2 preeti.pandey@cuanschutz.edu, Kruger, Megan^2,3, Sharma, Anu², Swanepoel, De Wet^1,2,3, Rodrigo, Hansapani⁴, Beukes, Eldre^5,6, Manchaiah, Vinaya^1,2,3,7,8
Source:	Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Jun2026, Vol. 69 Issue 6, p2887-2910. 24p.
Subject Terms:	Treatment of hearing disorders, Self-evaluation, Alzheimer's disease, Neurophysiology, Cognition, Adults, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Research funding, Hearing aids, CINAHL database, Severity of illness index, Treatment effectiveness, Meta-analysis, Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Online information services, Comorbidity, Disease complications
Abstract:	Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hearing devices for adults with mild-to-severe hearing losses. Specifically, we assessed the magnitude of change across outcome domains, identified measurement tools used, and reported adverse effects associated with device use. Design: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥ 18 years of age) with mild-to-severe hearing loss, comparing any air-conduction hearing device to passive or active controls. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges's g, and random-effects models estimated pooled effects. Results: Thirty-three RCTs (N = 4,471 participants) met the inclusion criteria, although pooled estimates could be derived from only a subset of trials due to limited reporting. Hearing aids demonstrated moderate-to-large benefits on hearing-related self-report outcomes compared with no-intervention or waitlist controls; however, pooled meta-analytic estimates could not be generated for this comparison because of insufficient data across trials. Compared with placebo, hearing aids yielded a small pooled effect (g ≈ 0.37), driven largely by trials including participants with comorbid Alzheimer's disease. Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) showed a pooled medium effect compared with no intervention (g ≈ 0.42), with benefits primarily observed for hearing-specific self-report outcomes and selected behavioral measures. In head-to-head comparisons, hearing aids showed a large pooled advantage over other hearing devices, including smartphone hearing aid applications (SHAAs) and extended-wear hearing aids (EWHAs; g ≈ 0.88), based on data from two trials. Across the included studies, most outcomes were self-reported (≈ 81%) and behavioral (≈ 45%), with very limited assessment of cognitive or neurophysiological domains. Nine studies reported adverse events, with only one device-related incident. Heterogeneity was high (I² > 80%), but no publication b ias was detected. Conclusions: Hearing aids provide substantial benefit for hearing-related self-reported outcomes in comparison to PSAPs, SHAAs, EWHAs, and placebo. However, high heterogeneity prevents reliable conclusions based on pooled estimates. There also remains limited evidence on cognitive, neurophysiological, and long-term behavioral outcomes, underscoring the need for more rigorous, domain-diverse RCTs in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hearing devices for adults with mild-to-severe hearing losses. Specifically, we assessed the magnitude of change across outcome domains, identified measurement tools used, and reported adverse effects associated with device use. Design: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥ 18 years of age) with mild-to-severe hearing loss, comparing any air-conduction hearing device to passive or active controls. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges's g, and random-effects models estimated pooled effects. Results: Thirty-three RCTs (N = 4,471 participants) met the inclusion criteria, although pooled estimates could be derived from only a subset of trials due to limited reporting. Hearing aids demonstrated moderate-to-large benefits on hearing-related self-report outcomes compared with no-intervention or waitlist controls; however, pooled meta-analytic estimates could not be generated for this comparison because of insufficient data across trials. Compared with placebo, hearing aids yielded a small pooled effect (g ≈ 0.37), driven largely by trials including participants with comorbid Alzheimer's disease. Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) showed a pooled medium effect compared with no intervention (g ≈ 0.42), with benefits primarily observed for hearing-specific self-report outcomes and selected behavioral measures. In head-to-head comparisons, hearing aids showed a large pooled advantage over other hearing devices, including smartphone hearing aid applications (SHAAs) and extended-wear hearing aids (EWHAs; g ≈ 0.88), based on data from two trials. Across the included studies, most outcomes were self-reported (≈ 81%) and behavioral (≈ 45%), with very limited assessment of cognitive or neurophysiological domains. Nine studies reported adverse events, with only one device-related incident. Heterogeneity was high (I² > 80%), but no publication b ias was detected. Conclusions: Hearing aids provide substantial benefit for hearing-related self-reported outcomes in comparison to PSAPs, SHAAs, EWHAs, and placebo. However, high heterogeneity prevents reliable conclusions based on pooled estimates. There also remains limited evidence on cognitive, neurophysiological, and long-term behavioral outcomes, underscoring the need for more rigorous, domain-diverse RCTs in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10924388
DOI:	10.1044/2026_JSLHR-25-00737