RESUMO
To analyze the influence of age and cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in the evolution of vestibular neuritis (VN). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. VN-diagnosed patients were included and divided into two groups: those with and without CVRFs. We analyzed the mean vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR) gain, measured through the video head impulse test (vHIT) at the diagnosis and one-year follow-up. We conducted a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the effect of age, sex, and CVRFs in the mean VOR gain. RESULTS: Sixty-three VN-diagnosed patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean VOR gain between both groups. However, in the subgroup analysis, there were statistically significant differences when comparing the mean VOR gain at the one-year follow-up between the group over 55 years of age 0.77 ± 0.20 and the group under 55 years 0.87 ± 0.15 (p = 0.036). Additionally, the factorial ANOVA demonstrated a significant main effect of age group on the mean VOR gain at the one-year follow-up (p = 0.018), and it also found a significant interaction between the factors of gender, age group, HTN (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: CVRFs do not independently affect the mean VOR gain in VN patients' follow-ups. However, age significantly impacts VOR gain in VN and could be modulated by gender and hypertension.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of adherence to hearing aids and determine their rejection causes. METHODS: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting terms for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed an electronic search using PubMed, BVS, and Embase. RESULTS: 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. They analyzed a total of 12,696 individuals. We observed that the most common causes for positive adherence to hearing aid use included having a higher degree of hearing loss, patients being aware of their condition, and requiring the device in their daily life. The most common causes for rejection were the lack of perceived benefits or discomfort with the use of the device. The results from the meta-analysis show a prevalence of patients who used their hearing aid of 0.623 (95% CI 0.531, 0.714). Both groups are highly heterogeneous (I2 = 99.31% in each group, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients (38%) do not use their hearing aid devices. Homogeneous multicenter studies using the same methodology are needed to analyze the causes of rejection of hearing aids.
