Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30767054›Full record

ReviewHNO2019

Hearing interventions to prevent dementia.

P Dawes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Do hearing loss interventions prevent dementia?Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Sensory Dysfunction in Old Age.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

P DawesManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness (ManCAD), School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biological, Medical and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK. piers.dawes@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hearing loss is a marker of risk for cognitive decline and dementia. Controlled hearing intervention studies of long-term cognitive outcomes are challenging, and thus the evidence for the impact of hearing interventions is primarily from observational studies and will likely continue to be from studies other than randomised controlled trials. Seven studies of hearing interventions with cognitive outcomes assessed over longer than 3 years are reviewed. Most were of low-to-moderate quality. One cochlear implant study had indeterminate findings. Of six hearing aid studies, three reported a positive impact of hearing aid use while three reported no impact of hearing aid use on cognitive decline or incident cognitive impairment. Further studies are required to elucidate the benefit of hearing interventions on long-term cognitive outcomes. Research should include objectively ascertained hearing data, theoretically motivated cognitive outcomes including dementia subtypes, characterisation, and control for confounds and application of advanced statistical modelling to test causal hypotheses.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsDementiaHearing AidsHearing LossHearing TestsHumansCochlear implantsCognitive dysfunctionHearing aidsHearing lossOutcome assessment

Identifiers

PMID30767054
PMCPMC6399173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.