Cited by 977Hearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsEar Surgery and Otitis Media

Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Differences by Demographic Characteristics Among US Adults<subtitle>Data From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004</subtitle>

Agrawal, Yuri·2008·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Hearing loss affects health and quality of life. The prevalence of hearing loss may be growing because of an aging population and increasing noise exposure. However, accurate national estimates of hearing loss prevalence based on recent objective criteria are lacking. Methods We determined hearing loss prevalence among US adults and evaluated differences by demographic characteristics and known risk factors for hearing loss (smoking, noise exposure, and cardiovascular risks). A national cross-sectional survey with audiometric testing was performed. Participants were 5742 US adults aged 20 to 69 years who participated in the audiometric component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004. The main outcome measure was 25-dB or higher hearing loss at speech frequencies (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and at high frequencies (3, 4, and 6 kHz). Results In 2003-2004, 16.1% of US adults (29 million Americans) had speech-frequency hearing loss. In the youngest age group (20-29 years), 8.5% exhibited hearing loss, and the prevalence seems to be growing among this age group. Odds of hearing loss were 5.5-fold higher in men vs women and 70% lower in black subjects vs white subjects. Increases in hearing loss prevalence occurred earlier among participants with smoking, noise exposure, and cardiovascular risks. Conclusions Hearing loss is more prevalent among US adults than previously reported. The prevalence of US hearing loss differs across racial/ethnic groups…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.168.14.1522

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agrawal, Y.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Agrawal, Yuri
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2008-07-28
Volume
168
Issue
14
Pages
1522
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975624851
Cited by
977
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 45
FWCI
19.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Ear Surgery and Otitis Media
Keywords
hearing loss, prevalence, speech-frequency hearing loss, high-frequency hearing loss, demographic differences, racial and ethnic disparities, smoking, noise exposure, cardiovascular risk, young adults, hearing loss prevention, hearing screening, audiometry
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Audiometry, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, Retrospective Studies, United States, Prevalence, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Hearing Loss

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review