Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40760922›Full record

SynthesisOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2025

Characteristics of Hearing Loss in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cory Hyun-Su Kim, Katherine L Lauritsen, Shaun A Nguyen, Ted A Meyer, Evan C Cumpston, Justin Pelic, Robert Labadie

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Cory Hyun-Su KimDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Katherine L LauritsenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Shaun A NguyenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0664-4571
Ted A MeyerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Evan C CumpstonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Justin PelicDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Robert LabadieDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

methodsA systematic review of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and SCOPUS databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify studies evaluating T2DM and hearing loss. Primary outcome measures included continuous measures (mean), proportions (%), proportional difference (∆), and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

resultsA total of 39 studies with 88,395 patients with T2DM and 20,337 controls were included. The mean ages of the T2DM and control groups were 50.3 (range: 19-96) and 46.7 (range: 19-76), respectively, with females comprising 63.8% and 64.3% of the groups. The mean duration of diabetes in the T2DM group was 9.1 years (95% CI: 8.1-10.1), and mean HbA1c of 8.4% (95% CI: 8.1-8.6), while the control group had 4.8% (95% CI: 3.9-5.7). Patients with T2DM had significantly higher prevalence and relative risk of clinically significant hearing loss compared to controls (53.0% vs 25.2%; ∆ = 27.7%, p < .0001; RR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1-4.8). In T2DM, 5.0% had conductive, 46.2% sensorineural, and 10.4% mixed hearing loss. According to WHO criteria, the T2DM group exhibited 22.1% mild (26-40 dB), 25.5% moderate (41-60 dB), 8.5% severe (61-80 dB), and 1.7% profound (>80 dB) hearing loss all with statistically significant differences compared controls (p ≤ .0001). In the T2DM group, data on laterality showed 15.0% unilateral and 29.6% bilateral hearing loss, both significantly higher than the controls (p = .008, p < .0001).

conclusionThis meta-analysis provides most updated estimates of the prevalence and relative risk of hearing loss in patients with T2DM, including details on the classification, laterality, and degrees. The significantly increased risk highlights the importance of incorporating hearing assessments and management into routine care for patients with T2DM.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Hearing LossHumanshearing deficiencyhearing difficultyhearing lossNIDDMnon‐insulin dependent diabetes mellitusT2DMtype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID40760922
PMCPMC12661477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.