ArticleOTO open
Hearing Loss Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Refugees and Asylees in an Urban Clinic, 2014-2017.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensory Difficulty and Assistive Device Use Among Older U.S. Immigrants: Differences by Region of Origin.Research on aging · 2026Article
- Hearing Problems Common in Immigrants: Association With Self-Rated Health.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: First, to determine whether using a single-question subjective hearing screen vs gold standard audiometric evaluation is effective for hearing loss screening in refugees and asylees. Second, to understand the clinical pathways for hearing loss diagnosis and treatment. Study Design: This is a case series with chart review from January 2014 to December 2017. Setting: A large urban safety net primary care clinic in San Francisco, California. Methods: Patients were included who had a medical record and completed single-question subjective hearing screening and audiometric evaluation during refugee health examinations. An overall 349 patients met all inclusion criteria. Results: Out of 349 patients, 48% were male; the median age was 29.3 years (SD, 15.1). The majority came from Central or South America (n = 148, 42%) and China (n = 79, 23%). Among all patients, 10 (3%) failed the subjective hearing screen, and 18 (5%) failed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the subjective hearing screen, 4 (40%) passed audiometric evaluation. Of those who failed the audiometric evaluation, 12 (66%) passed subjective screening, and only 5 (28%) received a diagnostic audiogram, with 4 diagnosed with hearing loss and 1 receiving hearing aids. The sensitivity of the subjective screening question was 33% and the specificity 99% as compared with audiometric evaluation. Conclusion: Audiometric evaluation is relatively inexpensive and easily administered, while a single subjective question is a poor screening tool. Hearing loss is undertreated in this population. Ensuring appropriate hearing loss screening, diagnosis, and treatment in this population is paramount to improving quality of life.
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.