The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diabetes and Risk of Hearing Impairment in Adults: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
CONTEXT: Recently, several studies have investigated the relationship between diabetes and hearing impairment, but results were inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the prevalence of hearing impairment between diabetic and nondiabetic adults. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (1950 to May 30, 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 30, 2011). STUDY SELECTION: Cross-sectional studies were included if data on numbers of hearing-impaired and non-hearing-impaired cases with diabetes were presented. Hearing impairment was limited to that assessed by pure-tone audiometry that included at least 2 kHz of frequency range and was defined as progressive, chronic, sensorineural, or without specified cause. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted relevant data. Odd ratios (ORs) of hearing impairment related to diabetes calculated in each study were pooled with the random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were obtained from 13 eligible studies (20,194 participants and 7,377 cases). Overall pooled OR (95% confidence interval) of hearing impairment for diabetic participants compared with nondiabetic participants was 2.15 (1.72-2.68). OR was higher in younger participants (mean age, ≤60 yr) than in those over 60 yr among which the OR remained significant (2.61 and 1.58, P = 0.008). The strength of the association between diabetes and prevalence of hearing impairment was not significantly influenced by whether participants were matched for age and gender (P = 0.68) or whether participants chronically exposed to noisy environments were excluded (P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Current meta-analysis suggests that the higher prevalence of hearing impairment in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients was consistent regardless of age.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
Cited by
Bowl, M. R., & Dawson, S. J. (2019) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a033217 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Horikawa, C., Kodama, S., Tanaka, S., Fujihara, K., Hirasawa, R., Yachi, Y., Shimano, H., Yamada, N., Saito, K., & Sone, H.
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
- Publisher
- The Endocrine Society
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-58
- ISSN
- 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
- 1945-7197
- OpenAlex
- W2084791795
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diabetes and Risk of Hearing Impairment in Adults: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1210/jc.2012-2119
- The paper
- Horikawa, C., Kodama, S., Tanaka, S., Fujihara, K., Hirasawa, R., Yachi, Y., Shimano, H., Yamada, N., Saito, K., & Sone, H. (2013). Diabetes and Risk of Hearing Impairment in Adults: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2012-2119
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.