Nattawan Utoomprurkporn1,2, Katherine Woodall1, Joshua Stott3, Sergi G Costafreda4, Doris Eva Bamiou1,5. 1. UCL Ear Institute, Faculty of Brain Science, University College London, London, UK. 2. Otoneurology Unit, Otolaryngology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Division of Psychology and Language Science, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 4. Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 5. Hearing and Deafness, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high risk of developing age-related hearing loss (HL) and/or cognitive impairment. However, cognitive screening tools rely on oral administration of instructions and stimuli that may be impacted by HL. This systematic review aims to investigate (a) whether people with HL perform worse than those without HL on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a widely used screening tool for cognitive impairment, and what the effect size of that difference is (b) whether HL treatment mitigates the impact of HL. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that reported mean MoCA scores and SDs for individuals with HL. RESULTS: People with HL performed significantly worse on the MoCA (4 studies, N = 533) with a pooled mean difference of -1.66 points (95% confidence interval CI -2.74 to -0.58). There was no significant difference in MoCA score between the pre- vs post-hearing intervention (3 studies, N = 75). However, sensitivity analysis in the cochlear implant studies (2 studies, N = 33) showed improvement of the MoCA score by 1.73 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.28). CONCLUSION: People with HL score significantly lower than individuals with normal hearing on the standard orally administered MoCA. Clinicians should consider listening conditions when administering the MoCA and report the hearing status of the tested individuals, if known, taking this into account in interpretation or make note of any hearing difficulty during consultations which may warrant onward referral. Cochlear implants may improve the MoCA score of individuals with HL, and more evidence is required on other treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:-, 2020.
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at high risk of developing age-related hearing loss (HL) and/or cognitive impairment. However, cognitive screening tools rely on oral administration of instructions and stimuli that may be impacted by HL. This systematic review aims to investigate (a) whether people with HL perform worse than those without HL on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a widely used screening tool for cognitive impairment, and what the effect size of that difference is (b) whether HL treatment mitigates the impact of HL. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that reported mean MoCA scores and SDs for individuals with HL. RESULTS:People with HL performed significantly worse on the MoCA (4 studies, N = 533) with a pooled mean difference of -1.66 points (95% confidence interval CI -2.74 to -0.58). There was no significant difference in MoCA score between the pre- vs post-hearing intervention (3 studies, N = 75). However, sensitivity analysis in the cochlear implant studies (2 studies, N = 33) showed improvement of the MoCA score by 1.73 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.28). CONCLUSION:People with HL score significantly lower than individuals with normal hearing on the standard orally administered MoCA. Clinicians should consider listening conditions when administering the MoCA and report the hearing status of the tested individuals, if known, taking this into account in interpretation or make note of any hearing difficulty during consultations which may warrant onward referral. Cochlear implants may improve the MoCA score of individuals with HL, and more evidence is required on other treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:-, 2020.
Authors: Nattawan Utoomprurkporn; Joshua Stott; Sergi G Costafreda; Courtney North; Mary Heatley; Doris Eva Bamiou Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Christiane Völter; Lisa Götze; Marcel Bajewski; Stefan Dazert; Jan Peter Thomas Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 5.750