[Skip to Navigation]
Views 2,138
Citations 0
Editorial
March 23, 2021

United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation for Hearing-Loss Screening Among Older Adults: An Opportunity in Insufficient Evidence

Author Affiliations
  • 1Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 2Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 3Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Published online March 23, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2021.0258

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently revisited and reviewed the evidence on assessing the balance of benefit and harm for screening older adults for hearing loss and reaffirmed the conclusion from its last review in 2012 that there is “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation (I statement).1 The USPSTF report is based on an updated evidence report and systematic review performed by Feltner and colleagues.2 The group conducted a rigorous review of major databases and found that relatively few studies had reported on the benefits of hearing care intervention and those that had were not generalizable to the general population because they were mostly performed in veteran populations with no subpopulation analyses.3 Moreover, no studies assessed for evidence of the presence of unintended harms and consequences of hearing screening and intervention. Lastly, the review2 did conclude that multiple screening methods can accurately detect hearing loss in older adults.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×