Home › Research › Disparities
Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Hearing Loss Treatment and Cognitive Outcomes in the United States: A Scoping Review
Kaitlin Hori, Malaika Jamal, Michael Zalin, Albert Mao Li, Janet S. Choi. The Laryngoscope, 2025-04-26
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Twenty-two studies (RCTs, non-RCTs, single arm and prospective trials) were included (n = 6-977; mean age: 72.0 years; 66.9% male). Twelve studies utilized HA, and 10 utilized CI. Participants were predominantly White (92.1% ± 9.2), with lower representation among Black (5.4% ± 9.5), Asian (0.1% ± 1.4), and Hispanic/Latino (0.05%; SD not calculatable) populations, reflecting the overrepresentation of White participants (Census 75.3%) and the underrepresentation of others (Census: Black 13.7%, Asian 6.4%, Hispanic/Latino 19.5%). Average education (11.3 ± 2.9 years) was comparable to U.S. averages, and hypertension and diabetes rates (67.2% and 20.1%, respectively) were lower than U.S. age-adjusted rates (74.5% hypertension, 33% diabetes). This review of participants characteristics in studies on hearing loss treatment and cognitive decline revealed disparities, particularly in race/ethnicity. Systemic efforts are needed to recruit underrepresented groups to better understand the impact of hearing loss treatment across diverse populations. Bridging these gaps is essential to improving the representativeness of U.S. populations in clinical trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hori, K., Jamal, M., Zalin, M., Li, A. M., & Choi, J. S. (2025). Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Hearing Loss Treatment and Cognitive Outcomes in the United States: A Scoping Review. The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.32213
Vancouver
Hori K, Jamal M, Zalin M, Li AM, Choi JS. Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Hearing Loss Treatment and Cognitive Outcomes in the United States: A Scoping Review. The Laryngoscope. 2025. doi:10.1002/lary.32213. PMID: 40285653.
BibTeX
@article{hori2025-40285653,
author = {Hori, Kaitlin and Jamal, Malaika and Zalin, Michael and Li, Albert Mao and Choi, Janet S.},
title = {{Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Hearing Loss Treatment and Cognitive Outcomes in the United States: A Scoping Review}},
journal = {The Laryngoscope},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/lary.32213},
pmid = {40285653},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.32213}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Twenty-two studies (RCTs, non-RCTs, single arm and prospective trials) were included (n = 6-977; mean age: 72.0 years; 66.9% male).
- Twelve studies utilized HA, and 10 utilized CI.
- Participants were predominantly White (92.1% ± 9.2), with lower representation among Black (5.4% ± 9.5), Asian (0.1% ± 1.4), and Hispanic/Latino (0.05%; SD not calculatable) populations, reflecting the overrepresentation of White participants (Census 75.3%) and the underrepresentation of others (Census: Black 13.7%, Asian 6.4%, Hispanic/Latino 19.5%).
- Average education (11.3 ± 2.9 years) was comparable to U.S. averages, and hypertension and diabetes rates (67.2% and 20.1%, respectively) were lower than U.S. age-adjusted rates (74.5% hypertension, 33% diabetes).
- This review of participants characteristics in studies on hearing loss treatment and cognitive decline revealed disparities, particularly in race/ethnicity.
Why it matters
This scoping review found that clinical trials on hearing loss treatment and cognitive outcomes predominantly enrolled White participants, with underrepresentation of Black, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino populations. It highlights the need for more representative recruitment but does not test a treatment for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Effect size66.9%; 92.1%; 5.4%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Laryngoscope) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | The Laryngoscope: journal h-index 238 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 2.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Janet S. Choi: h-index 25 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Southern California: institution h-index 1,521 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40285653) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Disparities
Also in Disparities
98 studies in the library are filed under Disparities with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Disparities hub.