Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31789968›Full record

ReviewOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2020

Sex-based Differences in Hearing Loss: Perspectives From Non-clinical Research to Clinical Outcomess.

Dillan F Villavisanis, Elisa R Berson, Amanda M Lauer, Maura K Cosetti, Katrina M Schrode

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. The Stigma of Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review of the Literature Across Age and Gender.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Dillan F VillavisanisDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Elisa R BersonDivision of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Amanda M LauerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Maura K CosettiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, New York Eye and Ear infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Katrina M SchrodeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Role of olivocochlear efferents in age-related hearing dysfunctionR01DC017620 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LAUER, AMANDA M. · 2018 to 2022
$2.2M
Supplement for temporal bone tissue scanning equipmentR01DC016641 · NIDCD · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI DENT, MICHEAL L, LAUER, AMANDA M. · 2018 to 2022
$2.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016641NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is estimated over 466 million people worldwide have disabling hearing loss, and untreated hearing loss is associated with poorer health outcomes. The influence of sex as a biological variable on hearing loss is not well understood, especially for differences in underlying mechanisms which are typically elucidated through non-clinical research. Although the inclusion of sex as a biological variable in clinical studies has been required since 1993, sex reporting has only been recently mandated in National Institutes of Health funded non-clinical studies.

objectiveThis article reviews the literature on recent non-clinical and clinical research concerning sex-based differences in hearing loss primarily since 1993, and discusses implications for knowledge gaps in the translation from non-clinical to clinical realms.

conclusionsThe disparity between sex-based requirements for non-clinical versus clinical research may inhibit a comprehensive understanding of sex-based mechanistic differences. Such disparities may play a role in understanding and explaining clinically significant sex differences and are likely necessary for developing robust clinical treatment options.

Indexed as

DeafnessHearing LossFemaleHumansMaleSex Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID31789968
PMCPMC7012726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.