Table 1 Summary of included studies
From: Association between hearing loss and frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Study Name | Study design | Participants | Hearing Assessment | Frailty Assessment | Measure of risk used in meta-analysis with 95 % CI | Quality Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Method | Criteria | Method | Criteria | |||||
Buttery et al., 2015 [34] | Cross-sectional | 1843 (1184a) community-dwelling people aged between 65 to 79 in Germany. | Self-reported Multiple questions | Questions such as “Do you have problem on the telephone?“ “Do you have problem in groups of more than 4 people?“ | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Relative risk ratio: 5.38 (2.17, 13.35) | Good |
Cakmur, 2015 [29] | Cross-sectional | 168 community-dwelling people aged above 65 in Turkey | Audiology Assessment Whisper test | A researcher stood 20–40 cm behind the individual, who had 1 ear closed, and the subject was asked to repeat something said by the researcher. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Not included in meta-analysis | Good |
Castellana et al., 2021 [36] | Cross-sectional | 1929 (1156a) community-dwelling people aged above 65 in Italy | Audiology Assessment Audiometry | WHO standard: A PTA average at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz was calculated for the better hearing ear (disabling HI > 40 dB) | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 1.48 (1.10, 2.01) | Good |
Cheung et al., 2020 [27] | Cross-sectional and Cohort | 306 (165a) people aged above 60 in Hong Kong | Subjective Validated tool (assessed by examiner) | Hearing item of the interRAI | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Cross-sectional Odds ratio: 2.83 (1.00, 8.01) Cohort component not include in meta-analysis | Good |
Closs et al., 2016 [38] | Cross-sectional | 521 (255a) community-dwelling people aged above 60 in Brazil | Audiology Assessment Whisper test | Whispered 33 cm behind the participant’s field of vision. Hearing impairment was defined as unable to answer the simple question. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 3.09 (1.73, 5.52) | Good |
Doba et al., 2012 [35] | Cohort | 407 community-dwelling people aged above70 in Japan. | Self-reported Multi-choice question | Hearing classified as none, slight, or obvious according to questionnaires. | CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale | Scored according to the scale. non-frail group scores from 1 to 3; frail group scores from 4 to 7. | Odds ratio: 2.186 (1.197, 3.995) | Good |
Gu et al., 2019 [22] | Cross-sectional | 4323 (2188a) community-dwelling people aged above 60 in China | Subjective Validated tool Assessed by examiner | Hearing: “clear-ly hearing” and “not clearly hearing or inaudible”, judged by examiners using voice test. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 1.30 (0.59, 2.87) | Good |
Herr et al., 2018 [33] | Cross-sectional | 1228 (867a) people aged 100 and above in Japan, France, Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden | Self-reported Simple question | Major difficulties in hearing when talking to a single person in a quiet room or hearing a telephone conversation | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 7.16 (3.24, 15.8) | Good |
Kamil et al., 2014 [31] | Cross-sectional | 2109 community-dwelling people aged 70 and above in the USA | Self-reported Simple question | Participants rated hearing as good, a little trouble or a lot of trouble. Defined as good to a little trouble hearing versus a lot of trouble hearing. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 1.68 (1.00, 2.82) | Good |
Kamil et al., 2016 [13] | Cohort | 2000 (1239a) community-dwelling people aged between 70 to 79 in the USA | Audiology Assessment Audiometry | WHO standard: A PTA average at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz was calculated for the better hearing ear (normal hearing ≤ 25 dB, mild HI = 26–40 dB, moderate-or-greater HI > 40 dB) | Physical frailty | A gait speed of less than 0.60 m/s; Inability to rise from a chair without using one’s arms. Positive for 1 test was considered frail, positive for both was considered severely frail. | Hazard ratio: 1.63 (1.26, 2.12) | Good |
Liljas et al., 2017 [28] | Cross-sectional and Cohort | Community-dwelling people aged 60 and above in the UK. 2836 (1658a) participants in cross-sectional study; 1396 participants in cohort study. | Self-reported Validated question | Participants rated hearing as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. Defined as excellent to good hearing versus fair or poor hearing. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: Cross-sectional: 1.52 (1.25, 1.86) Cohort: 1.32 (0.96, 1.81) | Good |
Lorenzo-López et al., 2019 [30] | Cohort | 749 community-dwelling people aged 65 and above in Spain. | Audiology Assessment Whispered-voice test | Whispered 0.6 m behind the participant’s field of vision. Hearing impairment was defined as unable to repeat back at least 3 out of a possible total of 6 letters/ numbers correctly. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Not include in meta-analysis | Good |
Mohd Hamidin et al., 2018 [23] | Cross-sectional | 279 community-dwelling people aged 60 years and above in Malaysia | Self-reported questionnaire | Self-reported poor hearing | Fried criteria | A participant 2 or less components was defined as nonfrail, and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 2.20 (0.91, 5.37) | Good |
Naharci et al., 2019 [32] | Cross-sectional | 484 community-dwelling people aged 60 and above in the USA. | Self-reported Single question | Participants rated hearing as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. Defined as excellent to good hearing versus fair or poor hearing. | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 3.064 (1.422, 6.604) | Fair |
Ng et at., 2014 [37] | Cross-sectional | 1685 community-dwelling people aged 55 and above in Singapore. | Audiology Assessment Self-report and Standard whisper test | Standard whisper test | Fried criteria | A participant without any of the 5 components was defined as nonfrail, 1 to 2 components as prefrail and 3 and more components as frail. | Odds ratio: 2.34 (1.21, 4.52) | Good |
Sable-Morita et al., 2018 [39] | Cross-sectional | 283 outpatients with diabetes mellitus aged 65 and above in Japan. | Audiology Assessment Finger friction test | The examiner stood 30 cm behind the subject and made the noise 5 cm from each ear twice. Hearing impairment was defined as unable to hear the sound in both ears. | KCL score | This checklist consists of 7 domains: exercise/fall, instrumental activities of daily living, cognition, mood, malnutrition, oral function, and social activities of daily living. Frailty was defined as a total KCL score ≥ 8. | Odds ratio: 2.02 (1.085, 3.76) | Fair |