Hearing devices for adults: A meta-analysis (Pandey et al., 2026)
Year: 2026
Type: article
Study designs: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis
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 bias 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.Supplemental Material S1. Search strategy and key words.Supplemental Material S2. Patient-reported outcome measure in included studies.Supplemental Material S3. All other types of outcome measures used in the included studies.Supplemental Material S4. Forest plot showing effect sizes for studies comparing hearing devices versus placebo or unaided in various outcome domains.Supplemental Material S5. Forest plot showing effect sizes for studies comparing (a) hearing aid versus other hearing devices, and (b) HA/OTC service delivery in various outcome domains. ABP = audiology best practice.Supplemental Material S6. Supplementary analysis of effectiveness trials.Pandey, P., Kruger, M., Sharma, A., Swanepoel, D. W., Rodrigo, H., Beukes, E., & Manchaiah, V. (2026). Effects of hearing devices for adults with mild-to-severe hearing loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 69(6), 2887–2910. https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_JSLHR-25-00737
Source: Figshare
Language: English
Subfield: Cognitive Neuroscience
Field: Neuroscience
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7158103341