↓ Skip to main content

Hearing Loss in the Elderly: Is the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening Version Effective in Diagnosis When Compared to the Audiometric Test?

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hearing Loss in the Elderly: Is the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening Version Effective in Diagnosis When Compared to the Audiometric Test?
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1601427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Barbosa Servidoni, Lucieni de Oliveira Conterno

Abstract

Introduction  Hearing losses inherent to the natural process of aging represent today a major public health issue, despite the little attention that their adequate care still receives. Early recognition and proper management of these shortcomings can significantly improve hearing, as well as the patient's general quality of life, reducing the overall impact of this important and prevalent condition of the aging process. Objective  The aim of this research was to evaluate the accuracy of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly - Screening Version (HHIE-S) in the diagnosis of hearing loss in the elderly when compared with the audiometric test. Methods  Through a cross-sectional study, our target population was composed of 138 individuals, aged over 60 and with any otorhinolaryngological complaints, recruited at the Clinic of Otorhinolaryngology and Speech Therapy of the Faculdade de Medicina de Marília (Famema), in the city of Marília, SP, Brazil. Patients already in the process of auditory rehabilitation were excluded, as well as those who did not demonstrate the minimum level of oral understanding necessary to allow the interview. Results  The prevalence of hearing loss according to the questionnaire was of 76.1%, while audiometry showed 79.7%. We found the diagnostic accuracy of the instrument to be of 86.2%, with a sensitivity of 89.1% and a specificity of 75.0%, regardless of gender. Conclusion  Thereby, we conclude that the standardized questionnaire under rating is suitable for the screening of hearing loss in the elderly, given its high accuracy and user-friendly quality.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 19%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Engineering 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 42 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,725
of 309,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#12
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.