Objectives: The use of standardized outcome parameters is essential for the comparability of clinical studies. Pure-tone audiometry and speech audiometry are widely used, but there is no systematic evaluation of the outcome parameters in clinical application. Nevertheless, there is presumably a great heterogeneity especially in the field of speech audiometry. This study presents a snapshot of the current situation of documentation and usage of outcome parameters in otologic research. Study design: Retrospective study of existing literature analyzing common speech audiometric test material and procedure Main outcome measures: Intervention Studies from 2012 to 2016 concerning hearing ability were eligible for evaluation. Studies were analyzed with regard to study design, pathology and intervention, speech audiometric parameters, pure-tone audiometry, implementation of reporting standards and journal related data. Results: 279 studies were included. Over 50% of the analyzed studies lacked proper documentation. In the remaining studies, there was a broad variance concerning the documented speech audiometric parameters, most often with a fixed presentation level of 65 dB SPL. Conclusion: The lack of generally used standards for reporting hearing outcomes makes it difficult to compare results of different clinical studies. An adequate description of the methods would be a first and important step in improving reports on audiological outcomes.