Vaccination for prevention of hearing loss: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Infectious diseases in childhood and adolescence are significant and often preventable causes of hearing loss, especially in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a scoping review to examine the extent, range and nature of available evidence on the role of vaccination for prevention of hearing loss worldwide. We reviewed the published scientific literature to identify studies providing quantitative information on the relationship between vaccination and hearing loss. We searched four databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Global Index Medicus. No date, language, or geographical restrictions were imposed. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and charted data. Here we show that vaccination may be a key, underexploited strategy for primary prevention of child and adolescent hearing loss. Although the important contributions of rubella and meningitis vaccinations to hearing loss prevention are widely recognised, we identify 26 distinct known or potential infectious causes of hearing loss that are preventable or possibly preventable through vaccination. Notwithstanding, we find a dearth of empirical evidence on the impacts of vaccination on hearing loss prevention. In addition, the review identifies no research from low- and middle-income countries, which bear the overwhelming burden of child and adolescent hearing loss. Finally, it shows that numerous vaccines that address priority infectious diseases relevant to hearing loss are in development and could be brought into use. We recommend strategic investment in research concerning vaccination as a strategy for primary prevention of child and adolescent hearing loss. Some infectious diseases (illness from bacteria, viruses or parasites) in childhood and young adulthood can cause hearing loss. Attempting to prevent these infections or lessen their effect could prevent hearing loss. We reviewed the available scientific evidence to learn if vaccines may protect against some of these diseases and thereby help to avoid potential hearing loss. We find that vaccination could be a key strategy not used widely enough, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. We found evidence suggesting that vaccines protect against a wide range of pathogens (disease causing organisms) related to hearing loss, but very limited observed evidence on the real-world effects of vaccination on hearing loss. We recommend efforts for more research to make better use of vaccines as a strategy for prevention of child and adolescent hearing loss. Johri et al. review the scientific evidence on the role of vaccination in prevention of hearing loss worldwide. The authors show that vaccination is a key, underexploited strategy for primary prevention of child and adolescent hearing loss, especially in low- and middle-income countries where childhood Infectious diseases are prevalent.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».