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.

64/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

Objectives To determine whether observed hearing loss (OHL) is associated with incident dementia in a multiethnic population. Design Prospective epidemiological cohort study. Setting Community in northern Manhattan. Participants Participants in the Washington Heights-Inwood Columbia Aging Project, a longitudinal study on aging and dementia in an ethnically diverse community (n = 1,881). Measurements OHL was defined when the examiner observed it or according to self-reported hearing aid use. A consensus panel diagnosed dementia using standard research criteria. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relationship between OHL at baseline and risk of incident dementia (mean 7.3 ± 4.4 years of longitudinal followup, range 0.9-20 years). Results OHL was associated with 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.3-2.3, P < .010) times the risk of incident dementia, adjusting for demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, apolipoprotein E4 genotype, and stroke. When stratified according to race, the association between OHL and incident dementia was high in all groups but was statistically significant only in blacks (hazard ratio = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.5-4.5, P < .010). Conclusion OHL was associated with greater risk of incident dementia in a multiethnic cohort. More study is needed to determine whether HL contributes to dementia and whether treating HL can reduce the risk of dementia.

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

APA 7th

Golub, J. S., Luchsinger, J. A., Manly, J. J., Stern, Y., Mayeux, R., & Schupf, N. (2017). Observed Hearing Loss and Incident Dementia in a Multiethnic Cohort. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14848

Vancouver

Golub JS, Luchsinger JA, Manly JJ, Stern Y, Mayeux R, Schupf N. Observed Hearing Loss and Incident Dementia in a Multiethnic Cohort. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2017. doi:10.1111/jgs.14848. PMID: 28323321.

BibTeX

@article{golub2017-28323321,
  author  = {Golub, J. S. and Luchsinger, J. A. and Manly, J. J. and Stern, Y. and Mayeux, R. and Schupf, N.},
  title   = {{Observed Hearing Loss and Incident Dementia in a Multiethnic Cohort}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.14848},
  pmid    = {28323321},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14848}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 1,881 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Objectives To determine whether observed hearing loss (OHL) is associated with incident dementia in a multiethnic population.
Results OHL was associated with 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.3-2.3, P < .010) times the risk of incident dementia, adjusting for demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, apolipoprotein E4 genotype, and stroke.
When stratified according to race, the association between OHL and incident dementia was high in all groups but was statistically significant only in blacks (hazard ratio = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.5-4.5, P < .010).
Conclusion OHL was associated with greater risk of incident dementia in a multiethnic cohort.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants1,881
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 64/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following 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	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	1,881 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28323321)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	37 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total	64 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also tagged “hearing”

119 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 119 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →