Fitzpatrick 2008.

Methods	Randomised but control participants crossed over to intervention after the control sessions
Participants	N = 24 (14 intervention and 10 control) Age: range intervention 45 to 86, mean 69.5; control 61 to 88, mean 70.1 intervention 9 female, 5 male; control 6 females, 4 male Inclusion criteria: 18 years plus, have high school diploma, native English speakers, SNHL, used binaural HAs for at least 6 weeks Exclusion criteria: SF‐12 score < 50%, word recognition score < 60%, no known neurological or psychiatric problems
Interventions	Auditory training versus lectures on HL and HAs and discussion of communication tactics Auditory training consisted for 16 sessions ‐ 13 training and 3 test sessions of 1 hour each
Outcomes	Medium‐term: NU‐6, CST, CCT (SPEECH PERCEPTION), HA use and satisfaction questionnaire (USE)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: random numbers table used – even number experimental, odd numbers control
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: although random number tables used it is unclear who undertook the allocation and whether this was concealed from the researchers
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants not blind due to the nature of the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Apparently no missing data ‐ must have had very highly motivated patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	High risk	Intervention group had training with one of the tests used in the evaluation sessions Also there was a baseline difference between the groups with the control group having higher scores on 2 of the speech perception tests