The Association between Hearing Impairment and Postural Stability in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence linking hearing impairment to higher falls risk through alterations in postural stability, with studies showing mixed results. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the association between hearing impairment and postural instability in older adults, including differences based on severity of hearing impairment. This review was pre-registered in PROSPERO and performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines across six databases. Primary research on adults aged 60 years and older with hearing loss and an objective measure of postural stability or gait were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross-sectional studies. Data were analysed using meta-analyses and a narrative synthesis. Inclusion in the meta-analyses required clearly defined audiometrically-assessed hearing impairment, and two subgroups of participants: mild (25–40 dB HL) and moderate to-severe (>40 dB HL) hearing impairment. Twenty-five eligible studies (n = 27,847) were included in the narrative synthesis, with quality ratings ranging from unsatisfactory to very good on the modified NOS. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis which showed individuals with moderate to-severe hearing impairment were significantly slower on the 5 x sit-to-stand test (mean difference[95%CI] = 0.50 s [0.04, 0.97], p = .03), had a slower gait speed (mean difference[95%CI] = −0.11 s [−0.16, −0.05], p < .001) and had lower total Short Physical Performance Battery scores (mean difference[95%CI] = −0.79[−1.17, −0.41], p < .001) than those with normal hearing. This review provides evidence there is an inverse association between increasing severity of hearing impairment and poorer postural stability across both the meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".