Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Hearing loss and dementia are both prevalent in late adulthood. The most common test used to determine cognitive status in late adulthood, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), is presented face to face, usually in the context of the physician's office in the presence of background noise. Despite the problems of hearing loss and cognitive problems in late life, there is an absence of evidence linking hearing-related deficits to performance on the MMSE and dementia diagnoses. Purpose This study examined the effect of decreased audibility on performance on the MMSE. Research design A between-subjects design was implemented. Participants were randomly assigned to one of five degrees of simulated hearing loss conditions and were blinded to condition assignment. Study sample One hundred and twenty-five young normal-hearing participants were randomized into five conditions of varying degrees of simulated hearing loss. Data collection and analysis Performance on the MMSE was scored and cognitive status was categorized based on the scores. Analysis of variance with conditions as a between-subjects factor was conducted with post hoc multiple comparisons to determine the effect of audibility on performance. Results Reduced audibility significantly affected performance on the MMSE in a sample of young adults, resulting in greater apparent cognitive deficits as audibility decreased. Conclusions Apparent cognitive deficits based on MMSE scores obtained in test conditions in which audibility is reduced could result in incorrectly identified cognitive loss if clinicians are not alert to hearing loss when patients are evaluated. Furthermore, health care providers should be cautious when using family report of cognitive impairment to diagnose dementia without accounting for hearing loss because the impression of family members may be based on misinterpretation of the effects of hearing loss.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jorgensen, L. E., Palmer, C. V., Pratt, S., Erickson, K. I., & Moncrieff, D. (2016). The Effect of Decreased Audibility on MMSE Performance: A Measure Commonly Used for Diagnosing Dementia. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15006
Vancouver
Jorgensen LE, Palmer CV, Pratt S, Erickson KI, Moncrieff D. The Effect of Decreased Audibility on MMSE Performance: A Measure Commonly Used for Diagnosing Dementia. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2016. doi:10.3766/jaaa.15006. PMID: 27115241.
BibTeX
@article{jorgensen2016-27115241,
author = {Jorgensen, L. E. and Palmer, C. V. and Pratt, S. and Erickson, K. I. and Moncrieff, D.},
title = {{The Effect of Decreased Audibility on MMSE Performance: A Measure Commonly Used for Diagnosing Dementia}},
journal = {Journal of the American Academy of Audiology},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.3766/jaaa.15006},
pmid = {27115241},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15006}
}
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
- Results Reduced audibility significantly affected performance on the MMSE in a sample of young adults, resulting in greater apparent cognitive deficits as audibility decreased.
- Conclusions Apparent cognitive deficits based on MMSE scores obtained in test conditions in which audibility is reduced could result in incorrectly identified cognitive loss if clinicians are not alert to hearing loss when patients are evaluated.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Academy of Audiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| 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 27115241) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
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.