Project description:ImportanceMost observational studies examining the association between hearing loss (HL) and cognitive impairment used subjective measures of hearing and addressed only one dimension of cognition, and very few investigated the potential benefit of hearing aids (HAs).ObjectiveTo evaluate objectively measured HL and several dimensions of cognition and estimate the association with HA use.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of the CONSTANCES cohort study, which recruited participants from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020, was conducted. Participants were a representative sample of adults (age, 45-69 years) with audiometric data and cognitive evaluation from 21 preventive health centers in France. Data analysis was conducted from April 1 to September 15, 2023.ExposureThe main exposure was HL, which was defined by a pure-tone average in the best ear higher than 20 dB hearing level for mild loss and 35 dB hearing level for disabling loss. Secondary exposure was self-reported HA use.Main outcomes and measuresCognition was evaluated at study inclusion by a standardized battery of 5 cognitive tests conducted by trained neuropsychologists. A global cognitive score was computed from principal component analysis and global cognitive impairment was defined as having a score less than or equal to the 25th percentile of the distribution.ResultsThe study population included 62 072 participants with audiometric data (mean [SD] age, 57.4 [7] years; 52% women). Overall, 38% (n = 23 768) had mild HL, 10% (n = 6012) had disabling HL, and 3% (n = 1668) were HA users. In multivariable analyses, mild HL (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15) and disabling HL (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.33) were associated with greater global cognitive impairment. The odds of cognitive impairment did not differ significantly between all participants with HA use and participants with disabling HL without HAs (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07), except among participants with depression (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, an association between the severity of HL and global cognitive impairment was found. The use of HAs was not associated with significantly lower odds of cognitive impairment. The findings suggest that it may be useful to monitor cognitive function in middle-aged individuals with HL.

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have shown increased academic problems in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). However, whether hearing devices can ameliorate the educational difficulties associated with UHL is not well studied. Therefore, the objective of the current systematic review was to answer the question: do nonsurgical amplification devices, bone-anchored hearing aids, and/or cochlear implants improve academic outcomes in school-aged children and adolescents with UHL?MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrials.gov</ext-link>, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 21, 2022. Published, peer-reviewed studies comparing academic outcomes in patients with UHL aged ≥5 and ≤19 years with and without hearing devices (nonsurgical amplification devices, bone-anchored hearing aids, or cochlear implants) were included. Results of studies were qualitatively synthesized, and the risk of bias was evaluated with the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool.ResultsA total of 5,644 non-duplicate publications were identified by the search, and four studies were included for synthesis, every one of which was investigating nonsurgical amplification. One small, single-arm study demonstrated significant improvement in subjective classroom listening difficulties after a 3- to 4-month trial with a behind-the-ear hearing aid. The other three studies of nonsurgical amplification devices showed no benefit across multiple academic outcomes with FM systems and conventional and CROS-style hearing aids.DiscussionThe small sample sizes, heterogeneous and/or ill-defined study samples, and overall low quality of the available literature ultimately make it hard to draw definitive conclusions regarding nonsurgical amplification devices' effectiveness in improving academic outcomes in children with UHL. No articles were identified that studied cochlear implants or bone-anchored hearing aids. Further studies with high-quality study design, large sample sizes, and long-term follow-up are needed to answer this clinically important question.

Project description:IntroductionIn the new revised National Institute for Health & Care Excellence (NICE, TA566, 2019) guidelines for cochlear implantation (CI) have clearly stipulated that the hearing loss must be bilateral. Prior to this revision, children and young people (CYP) with asymmetrical thresholds have been considered for unilateral CI when one ear was in audiological criteria. Children with asymmetrical hearing loss represent an important cohort of potential CI candidates, who will continue to be prevented from benefiting from CI unless evidence is produced to support implantation and maximise subsequent benefit.The aim of this study is to evaluate the 'real-life' hearing performance in a group of children who have received a unilateral CI and who have hearing thresholds in the contralateral ear that are outside the current UK NICE 2019 audiological criteria for CI. The contralateral ear will be aided using a conventional hearing aid (HA). The outcomes from this 'bimodal' group will be compared with a group of children who have received bilateral CI, and a group of children using bilateral HA, to extend the current knowledge about the different performance levels between bilateral CI, bilateral HA and bimodal hearing in CYP.Methods and analysisThirty CYP aged 6-17 years old, 10 bimodal users, 10 bilateral HA users and 10 bilateral cochlear implant users will be subjected to a test battery consisting of: (1) spatial release from masking, (2) complex pitch direction discrimination, (3) melodic identification, (4) perception of prosodic features in speech and (5) TEN test. Subjects will be tested in their optimal device modality. Standard demographic and hearing health information will be collected. In the absence of comparable published data to power the study, sample size was determined on pragmatic grounds. Tests are exploratory and for hypothesis generating purposes. Therefore, the standard criterion of p<0.05 will be used.Ethics and disseminationThis has been approved by the Health Research Authority and NHS REC within the UK (22/EM/0104). Industry funding was secured via a competitive researcher-led grant application process. Trial results will be subject to publication according to the definition of the outcome presented in this protocol.

Project description:Objectives(1) Measure sentence recognition in co-located and spatially separated target and masker configurations in school-aged children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and with normal hearing (NH). (2) Compare self-reported hearing-related quality-of-life (QoL) scores in school-aged children with UHL and NH.DesignListeners were school-aged children (6 to 12 yrs) with permanent UHL (n = 41) or NH (n = 35) and adults with NH (n = 23). Sentence reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured using Hearing In Noise Test-Children sentences in quiet and in the presence of 2-talker child babble or a speech-shaped noise masker in target/masker spatial configurations: 0/0, 0/-60, 0/+60, or 0/±60 degrees azimuth. Maskers were presented at a fixed level of 55 dBA, while the level of the target sentences varied adaptively to estimate the SRT. Hearing-related QoL was measured using the Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL-26) questionnaire for child subjects.ResultsAs a group, subjects with unaided UHL had higher (poorer) SRTs than age-matched peers with NH in all listening conditions. Effects of age, masker type, and spatial configuration of target and masker signals were found. Spatial release from masking was significantly reduced in conditions where the masker was directed toward UHL subjects' normal-hearing ear. Hearing-related QoL scores were significantly poorer in subjects with UHL compared to those with NH. Degree of UHL, as measured by four-frequency pure-tone average, was significantly correlated with SRTs only in the two conditions where the masker was directed towards subjects' normal-hearing ear, although the unaided Speech Intelligibility Index at 65 dB SPL was significantly correlated with SRTs in four conditions, some of which directed the masker to the impaired ear or both ears. Neither pure-tone average nor unaided Speech Intelligibility Index was correlated with QoL scores.ConclusionsAs a group, school-aged children with UHL showed substantial reductions in masked speech perception and hearing-related QoL, irrespective of sex, laterality of hearing loss, and degree of hearing loss. While some children demonstrated normal or near-normal performance in certain listening conditions, a disproportionate number of thresholds fell in the poorest decile of the NH data. These findings add to the growing literature challenging the past assumption that one ear is "good enough."

Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Project description:Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to difficulties with speech perception in noise, sound localisation, and sometimes tinnitus. Current treatments (Contralateral Routing of Sound hearing aids (CROS) and Bone Conduction Devices (BCD)) do not sufficiently overcome these problems. Cochlear implants (CIs) may help. Our aim was to evaluate these treatments in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). Adult SSD patients were randomised using a web-based randomisation tool into one of three groups: CI; trial period of 'first BCD, then CROS'; trial period of 'first CROS, then BCD'. After these trial periods, patients opted for BCD, CROS, or No treatment. The primary outcome was speech perception in noise (directed from the front (S0N0)). Secondary outcomes were speech perception in noise with speech directed to the poor ear and noise to the better ear (SpeNbe) and vice versa (SbeNpe), sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and disease-specific quality of life (QoL). We described results at baseline (unaided situation) and 3 and 6 months after device activation. 120 patients were randomised. Seven patients did not receive the allocated intervention. The number of patients per group after allocation was: CI (n = 28), BCD (n = 25), CROS (n = 34), and No treatment (n = 26). In S0N0, the CI group performed significantly better when compared to baseline, and when compared to the other groups. In SpeNbe, there was an advantage for all treatment groups compared to baseline. However, in SbeNpe, BCD and CROS groups performed worse compared to baseline, whereas the CI group improved. Only in the CI group sound localisation improved and tinnitus burden decreased. In general, all treatment groups improved on disease-specific QoL compared to baseline. This RCT demonstrates that cochlear implantation for SSD leads to improved speech perception in noise, sound localisation, tinnitus burden, and QoL after 3 and 6 months of follow-up. For most outcome measures, CI outperformed BCD and CROS. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl): NTR4580, CINGLE-trial.

Dataset Information

Effects of Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids on Audiological and Academic Performance in School-Age Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Publications

Effects of Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aids on Audiological and Academic Performance in School-Age Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets