Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Recent research has revealed an association between hearing impairment and dementia. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of hearing impairment on dementia incidence in a longitudinal study, and whether ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist care, care level, institutionalization, or depression mediates or moderates this pathway. The present study used a longitudinal sample of 154,783 persons aged 65 and older from claims data of the largest German health insurer; containing 14,602 incident dementia diagnoses between 2006 and 2010. Dementia and hearing impairment diagnoses were defined according to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes. We used a Kaplan Meier estimator and performed Cox proportional hazard models to explore the effect of hearing impairment on dementia incidence, controlling for ENT specialist care, care level, institutionalization, and depression. Gender, age, and comorbidities were controlled for as potential confounders. Patients with bilateral (HR = 1.43, p<0.001) and side-unspecified (HR = 1.20, p<0.001) hearing impairment had higher risks of dementia incidence than patients without hearing impairment. We found no significant effect for unilateral hearing impairment and other diseases of the ear. The effect of hearing impairment was only partly mediated through ENT specialist utilization. Significant interaction between hearing impairment and specialist care, care level, and institutionalization, respectively, indicated moderating effects. We discuss possible explanations for these effects. This study underlines the importance of the association between hearing impairment and dementia. Preserving hearing ability may maintain social participation and may reduce the burden associated with dementia. The particular impact of hearing aid use should be the subject of further investigations, as it offers potential intervention on the pathway to dementia.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Fritze, T., Teipel, S., Óvári, A., Kilimann, I., Witt, G., & Doblhammer, G. (2016). Hearing Impairment Affects Dementia Incidence. An Analysis Based on Longitudinal Health Claims Data in Germany. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156876

Vancouver

Fritze T, Teipel S, Óvári A, Kilimann I, Witt G, Doblhammer G. Hearing Impairment Affects Dementia Incidence. An Analysis Based on Longitudinal Health Claims Data in Germany. PloS one. 2016. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156876. PMID: 27391486.

BibTeX

@article{fritze2016-27391486,
  author  = {Fritze, T. and Teipel, S. and Óvári, A. and Kilimann, I. and Witt, G. and Doblhammer, G.},
  title   = {{Hearing Impairment Affects Dementia Incidence. An Analysis Based on Longitudinal Health Claims Data in Germany}},
  journal = {PloS one},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pone.0156876},
  pmid    = {27391486},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156876}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 72/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 42 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 72 of 100. Total 72 of 100.42 of the 58 points we could judge = 72 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 154,783 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27391486)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 42 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100.
Total 72 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “hearing”

118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →