Quantifying the Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Real-Ear Measurements (REM) for Hearing Aid Fitting (BREM)

March 2, 2026 updated by: Kuopio University Hospital
Adjusting hearing aid user's real ear performance by using probe-microphone technology (real ear measurement, REM) has been a well-known procedure that verifies whether the output of the hearing aid at the eardrum matches the desired prescribed target. Still less than half of audiologists verify hearing aid fitting to match the prescribed target amplification with this technology. Recent studies have demonstrated failures to match the prescribed amplification targets, using exclusively the predictions of the proprietary software. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines that recommend using real-ear measurement (REM) over initial fit approach and also the recent ISO 21388:2020 on hearing aid fitting management recommends the routine use of REM. Still audiologists prefer to rely on the manufacturer's default "first-fit" settings because of the lack of proof over cost-effectiveness and patient outcome in using REM. There are only few publications of varying levels of evidence indicating benefits of REM-fitted hearing aids with respect to patient outcomes that include self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise and patients' preference. Our main research question is whether REM-based fitting improves the patient reported outcome measures - PROMs (SSQ, HERE) and performance-based outcome measures (speech-reception threshold in noise) over initial fit approach. An additional research question is whether REM-based fitting improves hearing aid usage (self-reported & log-data report). Eventually, the investigators will calculate the cost-effectiveness of REM-based fitting.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Adjusting hearing aid user's real ear performance by using probe-microphone technology (real ear measurement, REM) has been a well-known procedure over 30 years among audiologists. With this measurement technique, it is possible to verify whether the output of the hearing aid at the eardrum matches the desired prescribed target. Still less than half of audiologists verify their hearing aid fitting to match the prescribed target amplification with this technology. Many still rely on the manufacturer's default "first-fit" settings (initial fit approach) which means that the patient's hearing thresholds at any given frequency are transferred to the programming software that predicts the output and gain of the hearing aid by using proprietary or modified prescriptive algorithm. These proprietary algorithms create an approximation over patients in situ hearing aid gain and output based on data such as the age of the patient, an estimate of microphone location effects, the ear mold or shell design and length, venting size, and tubing characteristics.

Recent studies have demonstrated failures to match the prescribed amplification targets, using exclusively the predictions of the proprietary software. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines that recommend using real-ear measurement (REM) over initial fit approach in order to verify the prescribed gain and output of the hearing aids. Accordingly, the recent ISO 21388:2020 on hearing aid fitting management recommends the routine use of REM. So why is REM still rarely applied clinically? The main reason is the lack of proof over cost-effectiveness and patient outcome. There are only few publications of varying levels of evidence indicating benefits of REM-fitted hearing aids with respect to patient outcomes that include self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise and patients' preference. According to a very recent systematic review and meta-analyses by Almufarrij et al. published in 2021, there are only six publications that meets the inclusion criteria, and the evidence favors REM fitting for all outcomes reported (self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise and preference). Still, the quality of evidence varies across the outcomes since all articles had a rather limited number of participants and only two used power calculation to determine the sample size. None of these studies reported health-related quality of life, which was assessed to be the primary outcome by the reviewers. Also, secondary outcomes of interest including adverse events, generic quality of life and cost-effectiveness were not assessed. The authors also acknowledged the lack of sufficient follow-up duration (the maximum duration was only 6 weeks) and the lack of permission for further adjustment to the amplification characteristics. In addition, the included studies failed to investigate first-time users over experienced hearing-aid users and the amplification characteristics the experienced users were familiar with, were not reported. This was judged to possibly impact on short-term outcomes since changes of hearing-aid users' amplification characteristics that they are already accustomed to, can cause discomfort. The authors also claimed that future studies should also estimate the importance of any benefit found and evaluate the reasons why participants are reporting these benefits.

In summary, current evidence indicates that the initial fit approach often fails to achieve the prescriptive acoustic gain and output of hearing aids, however, evidence which would clearly show that REM-based hearing aid fitting (which is time-consuming) is clinically relevant and cost-effective is lacking, and thus warrants further studies.

Our main research question is whether REM-based fitting improves the patient reported outcome measures - PROMs (SSQ, HERE) and performance-based outcome measures (speech-reception threshold in noise) over initial fit approach. These are the primary outcomes of our study. An additional research question is whether REM-based fitting improves hearing aid usage (self-reported & log-data report). Eventually, the investigators will calculate the cost-effectiveness of REM-based fitting. These are the secondary outcomes of our study.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

101

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Finland
      • Kuopio, Finland, 70210
        • Kuopio University Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

14 years to 76 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • all first-time adult patients (18-80 years of age) eligible for bilateral hearing aid rehabilitation based on an evaluation by an otolaryngologist or an audiologist

Exclusion Criteria:

  • confirmed cases of cognitive decline or dementia
  • unilateral or conductive hearing impairment

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Hearing Aid Manufacturer's Software Group
Participants' hearing aids are fitted by using manufacturer's software.
Other: Hearing Aid Manufacturer's Software
When using hearing aid manufacturer's software (s.c. "first-fit" or "initial fit") the fitting will follow the guided fitting procedure in the fitting software.
Other: REM (Real Ear Measurements)
Participants' hearing aids are fitted by using REM. In this method REM measurement tube is placed inside participant's ear canal near the tympanic membrane and the Real Ear Unaided Gain (REUG) is measured. REUG is used to measure the ear canal without any hearing device and shows the patients ear acoustics. Next the hearing aid is placed on the patients ear together with the REM measurement tube. In REM measurements the Real-Ear Occluded Gain (REOG) is measured with the hearing aid off. REOG allows consideration of the attenuation caused by the earpiece and its obstructing effect of external sounds. Next Real Ear Aided Response (REAR) is measured with the hearing device on. REAR allows measurement of the hearing device's amplification effect within the patients' ear and includes the effect of the patient's ear acoustics.
Active Comparator: REM Group
Participants' hearing aids are fitted by REM (Real Ear Measurements) method.
Other: Hearing Aid Manufacturer's Software
When using hearing aid manufacturer's software (s.c. "first-fit" or "initial fit") the fitting will follow the guided fitting procedure in the fitting software.
Other: REM (Real Ear Measurements)
Participants' hearing aids are fitted by using REM. In this method REM measurement tube is placed inside participant's ear canal near the tympanic membrane and the Real Ear Unaided Gain (REUG) is measured. REUG is used to measure the ear canal without any hearing device and shows the patients ear acoustics. Next the hearing aid is placed on the patients ear together with the REM measurement tube. In REM measurements the Real-Ear Occluded Gain (REOG) is measured with the hearing aid off. REOG allows consideration of the attenuation caused by the earpiece and its obstructing effect of external sounds. Next Real Ear Aided Response (REAR) is measured with the hearing device on. REAR allows measurement of the hearing device's amplification effect within the patients' ear and includes the effect of the patient's ear acoustics.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient Related Outcome Measure: Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)
Time Frame: Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Participants are asked to fill out SSQ questionnaire during every clinical visit. This questionnaire includes 49 items with a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 for each item and allows the assessment of hearing with and without hearing aids. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Patient Related Outcome Measure: Hearing in Real-Life Environments (HERE)
Time Frame: Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Participants are asked to fill out HERE questionnaire during every clinical visit. Questionnaire includes 15 items with a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 for each item and allows the assessment of hearing with and without hearing aids. Higher scores mean worse outcome.
Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Performance-based Outcome: Finnish matrix Sentence Test (FMST)
Time Frame: Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Participants will conduct Finnish Matrix Sentence Test (FMST) during every clinical visit. This test measures participants' speech perception in noise.
Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Performance-based Outcome: Digit Triple Test (DTT)
Time Frame: Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.
Participants will conduct Digit Triple Test (DTT) during every clinical visit. This test measures participants' speech perception in noise.
Change measures: 0 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Objective differences of the fitting parameters
Time Frame: Change measures: 0 months and 2 months
Difference in desibel levels between initial fit and REM
Change measures: 0 months and 2 months
Fitting preference
Time Frame: 12 months after the beginning of clinical visits
Participants' preferences are measured by likert scale (1-10).
12 months after the beginning of clinical visits
Hearing aid usage
Time Frame: 12 months after the beginning of clinical visits
Participants' self-reported hearing aid usage and log-data report are recorded.
12 months after the beginning of clinical visits
Cost effectiveness
Time Frame: Between 0-12 months.
Additional time consumption for REM and number of additional contacts to the clinic are recorded.
Between 0-12 months.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Kuopio University Hospital

Collaborators

Turku University Hospital

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Aarno Dietz, Prof., ENT specialist
  • Study Director: Matti Iso-Mustajärvi, Ass. prof., ENT specialist
  • Principal Investigator: Laura Ihalainen, MD, ENT specialist
  • Study Director: Tytti Willberg, PhD, ENT specialist
  • Study Director: Pia Linder, PhD, Medical engineer

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 7, 2022

Primary Completion (Actual)

September 12, 2025

Study Completion (Actual)

September 12, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 11, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 10, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

November 18, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 4, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 2, 2026

Last Verified

February 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 5551888

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral

Clinical Trials on Hearing Aid Manufacturer's Software

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Pakistan

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe