Direct-to-Consumer Hearing Devices: Capabilities, Costs, and Cosmetics.

This was not a clinical trial in patients; it measured devices in a laboratory and asked people to rate photos, so it does not show speech benefit, daily function, or long-term outcomes. Two devices were faulty and excluded from measurements except appearance, so the tested device sample was not complete for all analyses. Only the default program was reported, and adaptive features were disabled when possible, so devices with multiple programs or noise management may not have been fully evaluated. The survey participants were recruited from university staff and students and an audiology volunteer database, so they may not represent people who buy hearing devices online. Appearance ratings were based on photographs, not real wearing experience, and the authors note that different photo angles might alter ratings. The devices were limited to UK online models under £400 in 2018, so findings may not apply to current markets or higher-priced devices. The overall quality score used only some measures and excluded advanced features such as noise reduction and streaming, so it may not capture all ways a device could help.

The paper names the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre as the funder. The supplied text does not report other conflicts of interest.

Do not conclude that direct-to-consumer hearing devices are ineffective for patients. This study measured laboratory performance and appearance ratings, not real-world speech benefit, and a few devices came closer to standard gain targets than most.