ArticlePloS one2020
Gender-specific hearing loss in German adults aged 18 to 84 years compared to US-American and current European studies.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying What Better-Ear PTA4 Does Not Capture: High-Frequency and Asymmetric Classification Discordance in Two Independent Adult Population Samples from Germany and the United States.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Trends in Distributions of Hearing Threshold Levels by Ages: A Comparison of the ISO 7029 and Newly Available Country-Specific Data.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Age-Related Decline of Speech Perception.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrom an epidemiological point of view, the increase of pure-tone hearing thresholds as one aspect of biological ageing is moderated by societal factors. Since health policies refer to empirical findings, it is reasonable to replicate population-based hearing surveys and to compare estimates for different birth cohorts from the same regions or, conversely, for the same birth cohorts from different regions.
methodsWe pooled data from two independent cross-sectional German studies conducted between 2008 and 2012 and including 3105 adults. The increase of thresholds, the prevalence and risk of hearing impairment (HI) by age and gender were compared to results reported for European and US-American studies that were carried out at about the same time. Since these studies differed with regard to the age limits, the statistical approaches and, importantly, their definitions of HI, data adjustments were performed to enable the comparison.
resultsOverall, 15.5% of the participants in the German studies showed a pure-tone average at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz in the better ear (PTA) greater than 25 dB HL and 8.6% had a PTA of at least 35 dB HL. Based on one-to-one comparisons, the German estimates demonstrated a good agreement to a large Dutch study and with some reservations to a Swedish study, but considerable differences to US-American results. Comprehensive comparisons of the within-study gender differences showed that age-related HI was less and the gender gap was markedly smaller in Europe compared to the US due to the lower HI in males found in the European studies.
conclusionDiscrepancies in measurement procedures, conditions, and equipment that complicate the comparison of absolute HI estimates across studies play no or only a marginal role when comparing relative estimates. Hence, the gender gap differences reviewed in this analysis possibly stem from societal conditions that distinguish societies commonly labeled modern industrialized western countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.