ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Analytical methods for correlated data arising from multicenter hearing studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of probiotic lozenges on improvement in tympanometric classification within 12 weeks in children aged 3-6 years with adenoid hypertrophy and otitis media with effusion undergoing non-surgical management: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Trial
- Cochlear histopathology in macaques after noise-induced temporary threshold shifts.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Auditory Changes in Occupational Health Associated With Metabolic Diseases in Adult Workers.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2024Article
- Effectiveness in Preventing Hearing Loss: Meta-Analysis of Dietary Consumption Studies.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2024Article
- Soft classification and regression analysis of audiometric phenotypes of age-related hearing loss.Biometrics · 2024Article
- 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In epidemiological hearing studies, estimating the association between exposures and hearing loss using audiometrically-assessed hearing measurements is challenging due to the complex correlation structure in the clustered data, with clusters formed by the two ears of the same individual and the testing site and audiologist. We propose a linear mixed-effects model to take into account the multilevel correlation structures of the data. Both theoretically and in simulation studies, we compare single-ear linear regression models commonly used in published hearing loss studies with the proposed both-ears linear mixed models properly accounting for the multi-level correlations. Our findings include (1) when there are only participant-level covariates, the worse-ear linear regression models produce unbiased but typically less efficient estimators than the both-ear and average-ear approaches; (2) when there are ear-level confounders, the worse-ear method may lead to biased estimators and the average-ear method produces unbiased but typically less efficient estimators than the both-ear method; (3) the both-ear method may gain efficiency when additionally adjusting for testing sites and audiologists. As an illustrative example, we applied the single-ear and both-ear methods to assess aspirin-hearing association in the Nurses' Health Study II.
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.