Rationale: Dementia currently affects 50 million people globally with this expected to triple by 2050. Even though hearing loss is associated with cognitive decline, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Considering hearing loss is the largest modifiable risk factor for developing dementia, it is essential to study the effect of hearing aids on cognitive function. Objective: To systematically review the existing literature to examine the evidence for using hearing aids intervention as a treatment for deteriorating cognitive function. Design: A search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and grey literature was conducted revealing 3060 unique records between 1990–2020. Two reviewers independently selected longitudinal studies observing the effects of hearing aids on cognitive function in persons without dementia at onset of the study. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Outcomes are described in a summary of findings table and portrayed diagrammatically. Results: We identified 17 unique studies, spanning 30 years of research and 3526 participants. The included studies made use of 50 different cognitive function tests. These tests were grouped into separate cognitive domains according to the DSM-V classification for further analysis. The most beneficial impact of hearing aids seems to be in the cognitive domain of executive function, with six studies showing improvement, two studies being inconclusive and three studies not demonstrating a significant effect. Three of five studies demonstrated significant improvement when screening for brief mental status. The least beneficial impact is seen in domain of complex attention, with eight studies showing no significant effects, compared with one demonstrating improvement with intervention. Conclusions: Based on this systematic review, we conclude that there is controversy about the effects of hearing aids on cognition. Additional research through randomized clinical trials with standardized cognitive assessment and longer follow-up is warranted to further elucidate this relationship.

Background: Tinnitus is a phantom sensation of sound, which can have a negative impact on quality of life of those affected. No curative treatments are currently known. Neuromodulation by vagus nerve stimulation has emerged as a new treatment option for tinnitus, though till date the effectiveness remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to review the effect of vagus nerve stimulation on tinnitus distress and tinnitus symptom severity in patients with chronic tinnitus. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library systematically for RCTs, observational studies and case studies on the effect of VNS treatment for tinnitus on October 29, 2019. Studies including adult patients with subjective tinnitus, comparing transcutaneous or implantable VNS to placebo or no treatment or before and after application of VNS treatment on tinnitus distress and tinnitus symptom severity measured with a validated questionnaire were eligible. The risk of bias was assessed with the appropriate tool for each type of study. Results: Our search identified 9 primary studies of which 2 RCTs, 5 cohort studies and 2 case series or reports. 5 studies used transcutaneous VNS treatment and 4 used implanted VNS treatment. 6 studies combined VNS treatment with sound therapy. There was a serious risk of bias in all studies, especially on confounding. Most studies reported a small decrease in tinnitus distress or tinnitus symptom severity. Conclusion: Due to methodological limitations and low reporting quality of the included studies, the effect of VNS on tinnitus remains unclear. To draw conclusions for which patient population and to what extent (t)VNS is beneficial in the treatment of tinnitus, a randomised controlled trial should be considered.

Cochlear implants (CIs) are implantable hearing devices with a wide variation in clinical outcome between patients. We aim to provide an overview of the literature on prediction models and their performance for clinical outcome after cochlear implantation in bilateral hearing loss or deafness. In this systematic review, studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting clinical CI outcome were eligible for selection. A total of 4,042 references were screened. We included nine development studies and one external validation study. The outcome measure of all development studies was speech perception performance after cochlear implantation. The most commonly used model predictors were duration of hearing loss or deafness (n = 7), different types of preoperative measurements (n = 5), and etiology (n = 3). In three studies, crucial information to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction was missing. One study performed internal validation,two models were externally validated. One study reported specific discrimination or calibration performance measures. Although many articles describe development studies of prediction models for speech perception performance after cochlear implantation, the value of most of these models for their application in clinical practice remains unclear. Therefore, research should focus on increasing the clinical relevance of existing CI outcome prediction models.

Observational studies are the most frequently published studies in literature. When randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted because of ethical or practical considerations, an observational study design is the first choice. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was developed to provide guidance on how to adequately report observational studies. The objectives were 1) to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies of otorhinolaryngologic literature using the STROBE Statement checklist, 2) to compare the quality of reporting of observational studies in the top 5 Ear, Nose, Throat (ENT) journals versus the top 5 general medical journals and 3) to formulate recommendations to improve adequate reporting of observational research in otorhinolaryngologic literature. The top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals were selected based on their ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors. On August 3^rd, 2015, we performed a PubMed search using different filters to retrieve observational articles from these journals. Studies were selected from 2010 to 2014 for the general medical journals and from 2015 for the ENT journals. We assessed all STROBE items to examine how many items were reported adequately for each journal type. The articles in the top 5 general medical journals (n = 11) reported a mean of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.8%–72.7%; median 70.6%), whereas the top 5 ENT journals (n = 29) reported a mean of 51.4% (95% CI: 47.7%–55.0%; median 50.0%). The two journal types reported STROBE items significantly different (p < .001). Quality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngologic articles can considerably enhance. The quality of reporting was better in general medical journals compared to ENT journals. To improve the quality of reporting of observational studies, we recommend authors and editors to endorse and actively implement the STROBE Statement.

Importance: The prevalence of hyperacusis and its relationship with mental and general health is unknown in a nonclinical sample. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prevalence of hyperacusis and its relation with hearing, general and mental health in a population‐based study.Study Design: Prospective population‐based study.Material and Methods: This study uses data from the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study (BHAS). A sample of 5,107 eligible inhabitants aged 45 to 70 years completed a detailed questionnaire and a clinical assessment. A positive answer to “Do you consider yourself sensitive or intolerant to everyday sounds” was used to indicate hyperacusis. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between hearing, mental and general health factors, and hyperacusis.Results: Of 5,107 participants, 775 (15.2%) reported hyperacusis. The majority of participants with hyperacusis reported an occasional effect on daily life (72.0%). Being female, older in age, having a lower income, physical or mental health difficulties, more severe hearing loss, and tinnitus were all associated with the presence of hyperacusis. Individuals who experience hearing impairment, poorer general or mental health have a higher possibility of hyperacusis having an effect on their daily life.Conclusions: In this community population‐based cohort study, we found a prevalence of hyperacusis of 15.2%. Individuals with hearing loss, mental health problems, and lower physical health have a higher possibility of experiencing effects on their daily life associated with their hyperacusis. Unravelling the relationship between hyperacusis hearing, general and mental health can be of major importance for a better understanding of the condition and its consequences.Level of Evidence: 2 Laryngoscope, 131:E2887–E2896, 2021