Hearing Loss Prevalence, Years Lived With Disability, and Hearing Aid Use in the United States From 1990 to 2019: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes key data sources and methods used to estimate hearing loss in the United States, in the Global Burden of Disease study. Then, trends in hearing loss are described for 2019, including temporal trends from 1990 to 2019, changing prevalence over age, severity patterns, and utilization of hearing aids. DESIGN: We utilized population-representative surveys from the United States to estimate hearing loss prevalence for the Global Burden of Disease study. A key input data source in modeled estimates are the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), years 1988 to 2010. We ran hierarchical severity-specific models to estimate hearing loss prevalence. We then scaled severity-specific models to sum to total hearing impairment prevalence, adjusted estimates for hearing aid coverage, and split estimates by etiology and tinnitus status. We computed years lived with disability (YLDs), which quantifies the amount of health loss associated with a condition depending on severity and creates a common metric to compare the burden of disparate diseases. This was done by multiplying the prevalence of severity-specific hearing loss by corresponding disability weights, with additional weighting for tinnitus comorbidity. RESULTS: An estimated 72.88 million (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 68.53 to 77.30) people in the United States had hearing loss in 2019, accounting for 22.2% (20.9 to 23.6) of the total population. Hearing loss was responsible for 2.24 million (1.56 to 3.11) YLDs (3.6% (2.8 to 4.7) of total US YLDs). Age-standardized prevalence was higher in males (17.7% [16.7 to 18.8]) compared with females (11.9%, [11.2 to 12.5]). While most cases of hearing loss were mild (64.3%, 95% UI 61.0 to 67.6), disability was concentrated in cases that were moderate or more severe. The all-age prevalence of hearing loss in the United States was 28.1% (25.7 to 30.8) higher in 2019 than in 1990, despite stable age-standardized prevalence. An estimated 9.7% (8.6 to 11.0) of individuals with mild to profound hearing loss utilized a hearing aid, while 32.5% (31.9 to 33.2) of individuals with hearing loss experienced tinnitus. Occupational noise exposure was responsible for 11.2% (10.2 to 12.4) of hearing loss YLDs. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate large burden of hearing loss in the United States, with an estimated 1 in 5 people experiencing this condition. While many cases of hearing loss in the United States were mild, growing prevalence, low usage of hearing aids, and aging populations indicate the rising impact of this condition in future years and the increasing importance of domestic access to hearing healthcare services. Large-scale audiometric surveys such as NHANES are needed to regularly assess hearing loss burden and access to healthcare, improving our understanding of who is impacted by hearing loss and what groups are most amenable to intervention.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this article are to identify all the published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that studied the relationship between periodontal and systemic diseases and to assess their quality using 2 scales (the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ] and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR] checklist). METHODS: For SRs and MAs to be included, they should have investigated one of the following systemic diseases: pulmonary conditions, cardiac conditions, endocrine conditions, cancer, blood disorders, psychological conditions, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and several other diseases. Two investigators screened MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The tools used to evaluate quality were the AMSTAR scale and OQAQ. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018102208). RESULTS: The search strategy found 691 unique articles, 42 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Diabetes mellitus was the most investigated disease (14 out of 42 studies), followed by obesity (11 studies) and cardiovascular diseases (5 studies). A total of 40 reviews reported on the characteristics of included studies, and, as per the AMSTAR scale, 39 reviews had an a priori design. The number of reviews that fulfilled the status of publication criterion was the lowest (7 reviews only), followed by the number used in the assessment of publication bias (11 reviews). The number of high-quality reviews was higher with the OQAQ than with the AMSTAR checklist (33 vs 25 studies), but the AMSTAR showed a higher number of medium-quality reviews than the OQAQ (14 vs 6 studies). Both showed the same number of low-quality reviews. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality SRs and MAs are crucial to understanding the relationship between systemic and periodontal diseases. Medical practitioners must be able to inform patients about oral health and specific periodontal health concerns.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). METHODS: This study focused on SRs/MAs published in 8 Saudi journals. We investigated, screened and extracted the data, which included recording the main topic of each SRs/MAs and the date of publication. Furthermore, we assessed the quality of each included SRs/MAs using the AMSTAR and the OQAQ. The reviews concluded in January 2018. Results: The search uncovered 201 unique articles; of these, the researchers screened 110 full texts and included 103 in this review. Most of the included studies were published in Saudi Medical Journal (50 articles, 48.5%), followed by Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (21 articles, 20.4%), and Annals of Saudi Medicine (16 articles, 15.5%) . The main topics in these published articles were gastroenterology (20 articles, 19.5%), followed by oncology (14 articles, 13.7%), and pharmacology (9 articles, 8.7%). The AMSTAR and the OQAQ scales showed that most SRs/MAs were of medium quality. CONCLUSION: Quality of SRs and MAs published in Saudi journals was distributed in all categories (low, medium, and high) and it can be improved using critical evaluation by authors, journal editors, and readers. PROSPERO REG. NO. CRD: 42018102210.

Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis Case Definitions in Dental Research: A Systematic Assessment.

The aim of this review was to determine the most common peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis case definitions used worldwide in the implant dentistry literature. A systematic assessment of peri-implant disease classification was conducted using all publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar between 1994 and November 2017. Screening of eligible studies and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by 2 reviewers. The search protocol identified 3049 unique articles, of which 2784 were excluded based on title and abstract. In total, 265 full texts were screened, 106 of which met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 41 defined peri-implant mucositis. Eight (19.6%) used bleeding on probing (BOP) only; 8 (19.6.7%) used a combination of probing depth (PD), BOP, and radiograph; and 5 (12.3%) used PD and BOP. Cases with crestal bone loss of ≤2 mm in the first year and ≤0.2 mm in each subsequent year were considered as peri-implant mucositis. Ninety-three articles defined peri-implantitis; 28 (30.1%) used a combination of PD with suppuration, BOP, and radiograph, followed by 25 (26.9%) using a combination of PD, BOP, and radiograph. The main criteria in most of the studies were considered to be BOP, PD, and radiograph. Cases of crestal bone loss of ≥2 mm and PD ≥3 mm are considered peri-implantitis. Different peri-implant disease case definitions may affect disease prevalence and treatment strategies. We need to standardize case definitions to avoid discrepancies in case diagnosis and prognosis.

Chronic Periodontitis Case Definitions and Confounders in Periodontal Research: A Systematic Assessment.

Case definitions and criteria of periodontal diseases are not yet consistent worldwide. This can affect the accuracy of any comparison made between two studies. This study determines which are the most common chronic periodontitis case definitions as well as confounding variables that have been reported worldwide in periodontal literature. A systematic assessment on periodontal disease classification and confounders was conducted using all publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar between 1965 and October 2017. Screening of eligible studies and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. The search protocol produced 4,218 articles. Out of these, 492 potentially relevant articles were selected for review. Only 351 studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Combination of probing depth and clinical attachment loss was the most common chronic periodontitis case definitions used (121, studies, 34.5%). CPI/CPITN was the most common classification used. Age was the most common confounder studied in periodontal research (303 studies, 86.3%), followed by gender (268 studies, 76.4%) and race (138 studies, 39.3%). Albumin and creatinine were the least common variables studied (1 or 2 studies each). Different case definitions affect the prevalence and treatment consequences of periodontitis. We need to standardize periodontitis case definitions worldwide to avoid difficulties in case diagnosis and prognosis. Further studies need to be done to assess the association between periodontitis and several potential confounders.