Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Hearing loss is a marker of risk for cognitive decline and dementia. Controlled hearing intervention studies of long-term cognitive outcomes are challenging, and thus the evidence for the impact of hearing interventions is primarily from observational studies and will likely continue to be from studies other than randomised controlled trials. Seven studies of hearing interventions with cognitive outcomes assessed over longer than 3 years are reviewed. Most were of low-to-moderate quality. One cochlear implant study had indeterminate findings. Of six hearing aid studies, three reported a positive impact of hearing aid use while three reported no impact of hearing aid use on cognitive decline or incident cognitive impairment. Further studies are required to elucidate the benefit of hearing interventions on long-term cognitive outcomes. Research should include objectively ascertained hearing data, theoretically motivated cognitive outcomes including dementia subtypes, characterisation, and control for confounds and application of advanced statistical modelling to test causal hypotheses.
Key findings
- Seven studies of hearing interventions with cognitive outcomes assessed over longer than 3 years are reviewed.
- One cochlear implant study had indeterminate findings.
- Of six hearing aid studies, three reported a positive impact of hearing aid use while three reported no impact of hearing aid use on cognitive decline or incident cognitive impairment.
- Further studies are required to elucidate the benefit of hearing interventions on long-term cognitive outcomes.
- Research should include objectively ascertained hearing data, theoretically motivated cognitive outcomes including dementia subtypes, characterisation, and control for confounds and application of advanced statistical modelling to test causal hypotheses.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (HNO) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | — / 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 30767054) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Dawes, P. (2019). Hearing interventions to prevent dementia. HNO. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-019-0617-7
Vancouver
Dawes P. Hearing interventions to prevent dementia. HNO. 2019. doi:10.1007/s00106-019-0617-7. PMID: 30767054.
BibTeX
@article{dawes2019-30767054,
author = {Dawes, P},
title = {{Hearing interventions to prevent dementia}},
journal = {HNO},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1007/s00106-019-0617-7},
pmid = {30767054},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-019-0617-7}
}