OBJECTIVES: To estimate prevalence and secular trends in children's hearing loss.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from January 1996 to August 2017.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included epidemiologic studies in English reporting hearing loss prevalence.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The modified Leboeuf-Yde and Lauritsen tool was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses combined study-specific estimates using random-effects models.
PARTICIPANTS: Children 0 to 18 years of age.
RESULTS: Among 88 eligible studies, 43.2% included audiometric measurement of speech frequencies. In meta-analyses, pooled prevalence estimates of slight or worse bilateral speech frequency losses >15 decibels hearing level (dB HL) were 13.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-17.0). Using progressively more stringent cutpoints, pooled prevalence estimates were 8.1% (95% CI, 1.3-19.8) with >20 dB HL, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4-3.0) with >25 dB HL, 1.8% (95% CI, 0.4-4.1) with >30 dB HL, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.1-2.6) with >40 dB HL. Also, 8.9% (95% CI, 6.4-12.3) had likely sensorineural losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1) had self-reported hearing loss. From 1990 to 2010, the prevalence of losses >15 dB HL in 1 or both ears rose substantially (all P for trend loss types and secular trend.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Childhood slight or worse hearing loss is prevalent and may be increasing. Advances in understanding hearing loss trajectories, causes, and prevention would require international repositories and longitudinal studies with audiometric data beginning in childhood.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016034148.
METHODS: We analyzed Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 data on the prevalence of childhood epilepsy, intellectual disability, and vision or hearing loss and on years lived with disability (YLD) derived from systematic reviews, health surveys, hospital and claims databases, cohort studies, and disease-specific registries. Point estimates of the prevalence and YLD and the 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the estimates were assessed.
RESULTS: Globally, 291.2 million (11.2%) of the 2.6 billion children and adolescents (95% UI: 249.9-335.4 million) were estimated to have 1 of the 4 specified disabilities in 2017. The prevalence of these disabilities increased with age from 6.1% among children aged <1 year to 13.9% among adolescents aged 15 to 19 years. A total of 275.2 million (94.5%) lived in low- and middle-income countries, predominantly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The top 10 countries accounted for 62.3% of all children and adolescents with disabilities. These disabilities accounted for 28.9 million YLD or 19.9% of the overall 145.3 million (95% UI: 106.9-189.7) YLD from all causes among children and adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of children and adolescents with these 4 disabilities is far higher than the 2004 estimate, increases from infancy to adolescence, and accounts for a substantial proportion of all-cause YLD.
METHODS: A total of 229 community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older participated in this study. Variables were measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Revised University of California at Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (R-UCLA), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
RESULTS: There was an independent association between DSI and quality of life (P < .05) and between DSI and hearing loss alone and cognitive function (P < .05) in older adults. In addition, higher education was associated with better quality of life and cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: DSI is a significant factor affecting the quality of life and cognitive function in older adults. Sociodemographic factors such as education play an important role in improving quality of life and cognitive function. Thus, increasing the awareness of this disability is important to ensure that older adults receive the necessary support services and rehabilitation to improve their level of independence.
METHODS: Four questions and their corresponding response options were adapted from existing population-based surveys to assess tinnitus prevalence, tinnitus symptom severity, use of healthcare resources for tinnitus and hearing difficulty. The translated versions (Bulgarian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, and Spanish) were generated using recognized methods to achieve a "world-for-world" translation.
RESULTS: Translated versions were produced with acceptable functional equivalence to the original English-language version, as judged by a small panel of bilingual speakers who participated in the online field testing.
CONCLUSION: This work is the first of its kind to promote multi-national standardization by creating a set of tools that can readily be used across countries. These are currently being used in a European-wide study of tinnitus prevalence, and have wider application across English- and Spanish speaking countries including the Americas and Oceania.
METHOD: A prospective analysis was conducted on 173 patients (346 ears) with cleft lip and palate (CL/P) who presented to the combined cleft clinic at University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) over 12 months. The patients' hearing status was determined using otoacoustic emission (OAE), pure tone audiometry (PTA) and auditory brainstem response (ABR). These results were analysed against several parameters, which included age, gender, race, types of cleft pathology, impact and timing of repair surgery.
RESULTS: The patients' age ranged from 1-26 years old. They comprised 30% with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), 28% with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 28% with isolated cleft palate (ICP) and 14% with isolated cleft lip (ICL). Majority of the patients (68.2%) had normal otoscopic findings. Out of the 346 ears, 241 ears (70%) ears had passed the hearing tests. There was no significant relationship between patients' gender and ethnicity with their hearing status. The types of cleft pathology significantly influenced the outcome of PTA and ABR screening results (p