Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38625906›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Health outcomes in Deaf signing populations: A systematic review.

Katherine D Rogers, Aleix Rowlandson, James Harkness, Gemma Shields, Alys Young

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The influence of mode of remote delivery on health-related quality of life outcome measures in British Sign Language: a mixed methods pilot randomised crossover trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Trial
  5. Health literacy of the Deaf community: a scoping review.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026
    Article
  6. Communication barriers for d/Deaf people with cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Experiences of culturally Deaf people with health care access and navigation in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative co-design study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Towards an estimate of the impact of censorship on biomedical literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katherine D RogersDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0458-5715
Aleix RowlandsonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
James HarknessImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Gemma ShieldsDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alys YoungDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(i) To identify peer reviewed publications reporting the mental and/or physical health outcomes of Deaf adults who are sign language users and to synthesise evidence; (ii) If data available, to analyse how the health of the adult Deaf population compares to that of the general population; (iii) to evaluate the quality of evidence in the identified publications; (iv) to identify limitations of the current evidence base and suggest directions for future research.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The inclusion criteria were Deaf adult populations who used a signed language, all study types, including methods-focused papers which also contain results in relation to health outcomes of Deaf signing populations. Full-text articles, published in peer-review journals were searched up to 13th June 2023, published in English or a signed language such as ASL (American Sign Language). DATA EXTRACTION: Supported by the Rayyan systematic review software, two authors independently reviewed identified publications at each screening stage (primary and secondary). A third reviewer was consulted to settle any disagreements. Comprehensive data extraction included research design, study sample, methodology, findings, and a quality assessment.

resultsOf the 35 included studies, the majority (25 out of 35) concerned mental health outcomes. The findings from this review highlighted the inequalities in health and mental health outcomes for Deaf signing populations in comparison with the general population, gaps in the range of conditions studied in relation to Deaf people, and the poor quality of available data.

conclusionsPopulation sample definition and consistency of standards of reporting of health outcomes for Deaf people who use sign language should be improved. Further research on health outcomes not previously reported is needed to gain better understanding of Deaf people's state of health.

Indexed as

DeafnessSign LanguageHumansMental HealthPersons with Hearing Disabilities

Identifiers

PMID38625906
PMCPMC11020444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.