ArticleBMJ open2022
Adults' with hearing loss perceived listening ability in daily communication: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perceived listening ability and hearing loss: Systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding how adults with hearing loss perceive their abilities when listening in daily communication situations is vital to understanding the functional listening challenges associated with hearing loss. The aim of this study is to explore how adults with hearing loss describe their own experiences of the processes, behaviours and components of listening in real-world communication through secondary analysis of published qualitative data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies and qualitative components of mixed-methods studies will be conducted. Studies published in English will be identified through searching Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Embase and Google Scholar databases from inception to November 2021. Handsearching of the included studies' reference lists will be completed. Included articles will be assessed for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills checklist for qualitative studies. Thematic synthesis will proceed as follows: (1) line-by-line coding to label concepts present in the 'results' or 'findings' section(s) of the included studies; (2) grouping of similar codes into descriptive themes; (3) development of higher level analytic themes to develop a new interpretation of the included studies' findings. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of QUALitative (CerQUAL) research approach will be used to establish the degree of confidence that may be placed in synthesis findings and results will be reported alongside the synthesis. Two reviewers will independently undertake screening for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal, analysis and GRADE-CERQual assessments. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As secondary data analysis of the published literature, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other research and clinical meetings. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO prospective database of systematic review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020213389.
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.