ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
Age-based disparities in hearing loss diagnosis and treatment in the United States population.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate age-related disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of borderline/mild hearing loss (HL) in the United States. STUDY
designA cross-sectional epidemiologic study.
settingThe National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
methodsMultivariable logistic regressions controlling for hearing level were performed to investigate the association between: (1) age and recent hearing test; (2) age and hearing aid use. Age was grouped into quartiles (<25, 25-49, 50-74, ≥75 years). The first quartile of life was used as a reference group in all odds ratios, controlling for hearing level.
resultsOf 2115 participants with borderline/mild HL, 3 % (n = 53) were in age quartile Q1; 7 % (n = 147) were in Q2, 56 % (n = 1190) were in Q3, and 34 % (n = 725) were in Q4. Compared to Q1, those in Q2, Q3, and Q4 had 4.06 times (95 % CI = 2.11-8.02, p < 0.001), 4.51 times (2.56-8.19, p < 0.001), and 4.56 times (2.55-8.39, p < 0.001) lower odds of a hearing test within the past 4 years. Similar, although slightly larger, odds ratios were obtained when the outcome was hearing test within 1 year. Compared to Q1, those in Q2, Q3, and Q4 respectively had 4.38 times (1.47-13.5, p < 0.05), 5.41 times (2.27-11.8, p < 0.001), and 3.95 times (1.65-8.72, p < 0.05) lower odds of using a hearing aid.
conclusionWe have characterized a large, unaddressed, and modifiable disparity in the treatment of borderline/mild HL as individuals age out of the first quartile of life. Future studies are needed to explore factors, such as ageism, that may underlie these findings.
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.