ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Screening for age-related hearing loss in general practice: feasibility, diagnostic Value, and subsequent care pathways-a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
Introduction: Hearing loss (hypoacusis) is highly prevalent among older adults, affecting approximately 33% of individuals aged 65 years and above. It primarily impairs communication and is associated with mental health conditions, dementia, and social impairment. Although various screening methods exist, they are not routinely implemented in general practice. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and diagnostic value of screening for age-related hearing loss in general practices, as well as subsequent care pathways. Methods: In six general practices, 108 participants aged 65 years and older were screened using easyScreen, a method based on auditory brainstem responses, and were followed up after three and 6 months regarding further diagnostic evaluation and hearing aid uptake. Results: The screening procedure was brief, well tolerated, and largely compatible with practice workflows. easyScreen detected additional cases compared to questionnaire-based screening alone. The acceptance rates for further diagnostic evaluation and for the recommendation of a hearing aid were each approximately two-thirds. Discussion: While screening appears feasible and diagnostically valuable, the main challenges lie in post-screening care, particularly in diagnostic follow-up and treatment uptake.
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.