SynthesisDiabetes/metabolism research and reviews2026
Hearing Loss in Adults With Diabetes and Prediabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes impairs hearing through microvascular damage and neuropathy, yet the prevalence of moderate-to-severe hearing loss (≥ 40 dB HL) remains inadequately explored. Variations by age, diabetes duration, and socioeconomic factors are inadequately characterised. This systematic review quantified the prevalence and comparative risk of moderate-to-severe hearing loss in diabetes and prediabetes, exploring variations across age, national income level, and disease duration. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL (2000-2025) for observational studies reporting audiometric thresholds in diabetic or prediabetic subjects (PROSPERO: CRD42018100742). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses generated pooled prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Publication bias was evaluated via funnel plots and Egger's regression. Of 3490 records, 29 studies qualified. Most examined type 2 diabetes; one included prediabetes. Twenty-three studies (n = 5221) yielded a pooled prevalence of 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%; I
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.