Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33755082›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2021

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Cynthia Feltner, Ina F Wallace, Christine E Kistler, Manny Coker-Schwimmer, Daniel E Jonas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Analysis of characteristics and influencing factors of hearing loss in the older adults].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Access to Ear and Hearing Care Globally: A Survey of Stakeholder Perceptions from the Lancet Commission on Global Hearing Loss.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  19. Evaluating the accuracy of a self-administered smartphone hearing test application in a geriatric population.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  20. Age-Related Hearing Loss: Evidence-Based Strategies for Early Detection and Management.ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cynthia FeltnerRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Ina F WallaceRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Christine E KistlerRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Manny Coker-SchwimmerRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Daniel E JonasRTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USRTI International · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective: To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Forty-one studies (N = 26 386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23 228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12 637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningAgedHearing AidsHearing LossHearing Loss, SensorineuralHearing TestsHumansMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of LifeRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID33755082
OpenAlexW3137266102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.