ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
A hypothetical intervention on the use of hearing aids for the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss in UK Biobank.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hearing Loss as a Potentially Modifiable Marker of Dementia Risk: Neurological Evidence, Uncertainty, and Clinical Interpretation.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Review
- Methodological innovations in studying marginalized populations in research on neurodegeneration and ageing.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
- Downstream of hearing loss: a population-based multistate analysis of lifetime risk and years lived with hearing loss, dementia and their comorbidity in Finland.Age and ageing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Observational studies have reported that hearing aid (HA) use is associated with a reduced risk of dementia diagnosis, suggesting a possible protective effect. However, extant observational studies do not explicitly model causal effects, while randomized controlled trials on the effect of HA on dementia exhibit short follow-up. Here we used self-report, hearing tests, and healthcare records in UK Biobank to design a hypothetical intervention for the effect of HA use on the risk of dementia diagnosis in people with incident hearing loss. HA users exhibited a higher risk of dementia diagnosis than nonusers (risk ratio: 1.43; 95% CI, 1.08-1.88). Associations between HA use and dementia diagnosis were robust across sensitivity analyses (risk ratio: 1.34-1.59), but adjustment for primary healthcare use (risk ratio: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) or primary and secondary care use (risk ratio: 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.18) substantially decreased the observed effect. The decrease in effect estimates upon adjustment for primary (risk ratio: 1.30; 95% CI, 0.95-1.78), and primary and secondary healthcare use (1.30, 0.94-1.78) was smaller when participants with relatively early diagnoses of hearing loss were included in the sample compared to when they were not. While the findings are not conclusive, they suggest residual confounding by healthcare use and dating of hearing loss diagnosis in participants without primary care data in UK Biobank.
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.