ArticlePloS one2020
A new approach to estimating the prevalence of hereditary hearing loss: An analysis of the distribution of sign language users based on census data in Russia.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absence of comparable epidemiological data challenges the correct estimation of the prevalence of congenital hearing loss (HL) around the world. Sign language (SL) is known as the main type of communication of deaf people. We suggest that the distribution of SL can be interpreted as an indirect indicator of the prevalence of congenital HL. Since a significant part of congenital HL is due to genetic causes, an assessment of the distribution of SL users can reveal regions with an extensive accumulation of hereditary HL. For the first time, we analyzed the data on the distribution of SL users that became available for the total population of Russia by the 2010 census. Seventy-three out of 85 federal regions of Russia were ranked into three groups by the 25th and 75th percentiles of the proportion of SL users: 14 regions-"low proportion"; 48 regions-"average proportion"; and 11 regions-"high proportion". We consider that the observed uneven prevalence of SL users can reflect underlying hereditary forms of congenital HL accumulated in certain populations by specific genetic background and population structure. At least, the data from this study indicate that the highest proportions of SL users detected in some Siberian regions are consistent with the reported accumulation of specific hereditary HL forms in indigenous Yakut, Tuvinian and Altaian populations.
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.