OBJECTIVE: To review the literature in order to identify outcome measures used in research on adults with hearing loss (HL) as part of the ICF Core Sets development project, and to describe study and population characteristics of the reviewed studies. DESIGN: A systematic review methodology was applied using multiple databases. A comprehensive search was conducted and two search pools were created, pool I and pool II. STUDY SAMPLE: The study population included adults (≥ 18 years of age) with HL and oral language as the primary mode of communication. RESULTS: 122 studies were included. Outcome measures were distinguished by 'instrument type', and 10 types were identified. In total, 246 (pool I) and 122 (pool II) different measures were identified, and only approximately 20% were extracted twice or more. Most measures were related to speech recognition. Fifty-one different questionnaires were identified. Many studies used small sample sizes, and the sex of participants was not revealed in several studies. CONCLUSION: The low prevalence of identified measures reflects a lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome measures to use in audiology. Reflections and discussions are made in relation to small sample sizes and the lack of sex differentiation/descriptions within the included articles.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature in order to identify outcome measures used in research on adults with hearing loss (HL) as part of the ICF Core Sets development project, and to describe study and population characteristics of the reviewed studies. DESIGN: A systematic review methodology was applied using multiple databases. A comprehensive search was conducted and two search pools were created, pool I and pool II. STUDY SAMPLE: The study population included adults (≥ 18 years of age) with HL and oral language as the primary mode of communication. RESULTS: 122 studies were included. Outcome measures were distinguished by 'instrument type', and 10 types were identified. In total, 246 (pool I) and 122 (pool II) different measures were identified, and only approximately 20% were extracted twice or more. Most measures were related to speech recognition. Fifty-one different questionnaires were identified. Many studies used small sample sizes, and the sex of participants was not revealed in several studies. CONCLUSION: The low prevalence of identified measures reflects a lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome measures to use in audiology. Reflections and discussions are made in relation to small sample sizes and the lack of sex differentiation/descriptions within the included articles.
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Kristina Lindsley; Diana V Do; Roy S Chuck; Catherine Meyerle; Leslie S Jones; Anne L Coleman; Henry D Jampel; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Deborah A Hall; Haula Haider; Agnieszka J Szczepek; Pia Lau; Sarah Rabau; Julie Jones-Diette; Alain Londero; Niklas K Edvall; Christopher R Cederroth; Marzena Mielczarek; Thomas Fuller; Angel Batuecas-Caletrio; Petra Brueggemen; Dean M Thompson; Arnaud Norena; Rilana F F Cima; Rajnikant L Mehta; Birgit Mazurek Journal: Trials Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.279