ArticleSAGE open medicine2024
Disparities between objectively measured hearing loss and subjectively perceived aided hearing loss: A scoping review.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This scoping review aims to summarize and synthesize research findings on the disparities between audiometrically diagnosed and aided hearing loss versus the individual's own experience of hearing loss. Methods: A systematic search strategy was employed across multiple databases to identify studies published between 1990 and October 2023 focusing on the experiences of hearing problems among individuals with aided hearing loss. The selected studies underwent screening based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria revolved around including papers featuring a population of adult (+18) individuals with audiometrically measured hearing loss who had undergone technological rehabilitation. Data charting was employed to provide an overview of the studies and was additionally utilized to identify key themes. Narrative analysis was used to identify subthemes within the data set. Results: A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis identified five themes: "disability experience and discrepancy between measured and self-perceived hearing loss"; "listening effort"; "mental burden/psychological consequences"; "factors that alleviate the consequences of HL"; and "sociodemographic factors." Conclusions: The scoping review shows that, despite the proliferation of technological options, there is a pressing need for a more concentrated effort to identify and scrutinize the supplementary facets of hearing loss that remain inadequately addressed by current hearing technology. This includes subjective experiences associated with hearing loss that may not be effectively treated solely with hearing aids.
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.