Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676318›Full record

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.

Jure Mur, Matthias Klee, Helen R Wright, Alina Solomon, Christine Johnson, Thomas J Littlejohns, Graciela Muniz-Terrera, Anja K Leist

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jure MurCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 1HT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0103-5139
Matthias KleeDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality (IRSEI), University of Luxembourg, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-482X
Helen R WrightDepartment of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2685-5360
Alina SolomonInstitute of Clinical Medicine/Neurology, University of Eastern Finland, FI-70029 Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7166-9903
Christine JohnsonSpeech and Hearing Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh EH21 6UU, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8573-5396
Thomas J LittlejohnsNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1177-6923
Graciela Muniz-TerreraCentre for Dementia Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4516-0337
Anja K LeistDepartment of Social Sciences, Institute for Research on Socio-Economic Inequality (IRSEI), University of Luxembourg, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-5209

Funding

European Research Council 804371European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (803239University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine no. 108890/B/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

DementiaHearing AidsHearing LossAgedBiological Specimen BanksFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Kingdombiasdementiahearing aidshearing losstarget trialUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID39676318
PMCPMC12527245

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.