SynthesisCoDAS2022
The use of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics questionnaires to identify hearing disability: a systematic review.
Synthesis in CoDAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between disability and mortality among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence and factors associated with physical inactivity among older persons in Malaysia: Findings from the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2023.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Feasibility study of a menstrual health behaviour change intervention for women and girls with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers for Vanuatu's humanitarian responses.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Human capabilities of South African parents who have children with developmental disabilities.African journal of disability · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the use of instruments from the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) to obtain data on hearing disability (HD). RESEARCH STRATEGIES: We conducted searches in the PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Lilacs databases and the grey literature. The software "The State of the Art through Systematic Review" and "Mendeley" were used to assist in the bibliographic reference organization, selection, and storage. SELECTION CRITERIA: we followed the guidelines proposed by the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis" and we selected studies that met the following inclusion criteria: written in English or Portuguese, within the period of 2001 to 2017 and have used the WG hearing disability question. DATA ANALYSIS: The variables analyzed into the studies were: WG module, country and year of data collection, sample size and composition, objective of the study, publication journal, HD estimate of prevalence and accuracy measures.
resultsSixty-five studies are included in the review, conducted with data from 30 countries. The WG Short Set of question was the most often used. Hearing disability prevalence ranged from 0.2 to 2.3% and only three studies estimated the accuracy of the instrument to identify HD.
conclusionThe hearing disability question of WG has been used worldwide and mainly in developing countries. The short variation in the estimated prevalence measurements within studies seems favorable to the WG's goal of generate estimates that allow international comparison. However, the shortage of validity studies indicates the need for further investigations with this purpose.
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.