Summary of findings 5. Hearing loss prevention programme compared to audiometric testing (hearing loss).
| Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) compared to audiometric testing | ||||||
|
Patient or population: agricultural students without hearing loss Settings: agricultural schools Intervention: HLPP with information Comparison: audiometric testing only | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Audiometric testing only | HLPP with information | |||||
| Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear Follow‐up: mean three years | 21 per 1000 | 18 per 1000 (6 to 49) | OR 0.85 (0.29 to 2.44) | 687 (1 study, RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB hearing loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear Follow‐up: mean 16 years | 149 per 1000 | 141 per 1000 (74 to 250) | OR 0.94 (0.46 to 1.91) | 355 (1 study, RCT) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; HLPP; hearing loss prevention programme; OR: Odds ratio; STS: standard threshold shift | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1We downgraded one level from high to moderate due to lack of information on randomisation and allocation concealment.