This is the kind of nonsense news that regular, every-day-walking-around people listen to and trust because it's "national," "public" radio that uses their tax dollars so people assume their reports are somehow verified or more trustworthy.
But, I'm so glad I had my hearing aids re-calibrated this week; now I'm sure to live to 100 at least.
Please continue to publish pieces like this one. It is good to be able to link these to the folks who only seek their news from the likes of NPR, msnbc, cnn, nytimes, etc.
One thing not considered was that many people start to use hearing aids in their late 70s and 80s so the fact that other factors have let them live that long would skew the data. Another factor is depending on your insurance the cost of hearing aids may be too much for some people. Higher income may mean better health car throughout your life.
Was this study funded by the hearing-aid industrial complex? Maybe business is slow.
It’s getting comical these days. But you look at the number of journals these days ….and subjournals of big properties like JAMA, NEJM, and JACC….and they need something to fill pages. Then you look at the promotion criteria in academia, with the need to publish and bibliometrics. So you have willing dance partners where intellectual rigor and integrity get sacrificed at the altar of self-promotion.
As Dr. Mandrola says, there has to be a change in the incentive structure or nothing will stem the tide of the rising sea of garbage.
I think you are looking at things from a wrong POV.
Once the researchers acknowledge potential confounding and don't play with the data I don't see any problem with this study (an entire different topic is publishing the authors' thoughts, media, etc... but I won't deal with that).
Even serious randomized studies should acknowledge potential confounding they aren't able to identify.
Most medical literature has this same problem: we look for correlations more and more solid but there's always the risk they are just spurious. The ideas that experimental results in published papers are necessarily "good" or even that statistical sophistication ensures that the results are "solid", are ill-conceived.
What apparently lacks in medical research and related fields is a theoretical branch concerned with producing scientific hypotheses and questions and devising powerful experimental frameworks to answer them.
Such well designed research might lead to answering questions and improve our knowledge in a cost effective, transparent, more objective, statistically sound and ethically irreprehensible way. Possibly a way that is even harder to be captured by external interests.
Ofc we have to ensure that indipendent research can come to light as well, but I think we should first worry about the big issue of having a relevant percentage of medical research that is useless or worse:
You can't have good research if - on average - the same smal team does everything from base research, to experimental setup, to funding, to data collection, to statistical analysis, to result interpretation, to writing the paper.
Socioeconomic level is certainly the chief cause for differences in longevity between groups, countries and the individuals within them. One can take any one of a number of factors that differ between relatively prosperous individuals or countries versus those less well off and get an impressive degree of correlation. For example, the average US town probably has more TV sets and expensive cars than the average African village. In a comment below, Pauline correctly points out that hearing aids are expensive and, therefore, more likely to be used by people with a higher income level.
not sure why you are confused by NPR reporting. they are typically not-objective and very biased, especially around science topics. No serious in depth science coverage.
I've observed that listeners have scotomas on NPR's obvious bias. I don't know if it's the breathy, low-key, way of talking over there that makes them sound more erudite, or the habitual interjection of "sort of" in their commentaries, or the use of "public" in their name, or what. But, I find people are shocked when I comment on npr bias. It's the same with NYT; just because it was once dubbed "paper of record" people can't see their incredible bias.
I am not a researcher, but I can think of a confounder off the top of my head: hearing aids are expensive. Insurance often doesn’t cover them. So lower income people would be less likely to afford them.
Hearing aids nearly cost me my life. Walking back to my office after getting my first set in 1986, I heard a terrifying, screeching sound that nearly caused me to jump into the street in the path of a bus. The sound was birds.
So grateful for Sensible Medicine and all that it has taught me about appraising research, trials, recommendations, healthcare news, etc. Basically I don’t trust anything anymore!
Thank you for this, Dr. Cifu!
This is the kind of nonsense news that regular, every-day-walking-around people listen to and trust because it's "national," "public" radio that uses their tax dollars so people assume their reports are somehow verified or more trustworthy.
But, I'm so glad I had my hearing aids re-calibrated this week; now I'm sure to live to 100 at least.
Please continue to publish pieces like this one. It is good to be able to link these to the folks who only seek their news from the likes of NPR, msnbc, cnn, nytimes, etc.
I enjoyed the article. Do you the reference for "My friends, statins don’t reduce death when used for primary prevention."
thanks.
One thing not considered was that many people start to use hearing aids in their late 70s and 80s so the fact that other factors have let them live that long would skew the data. Another factor is depending on your insurance the cost of hearing aids may be too much for some people. Higher income may mean better health car throughout your life.
Comical and stupid.
Wokeness at work!
Was this study funded by the hearing-aid industrial complex? Maybe business is slow.
It’s getting comical these days. But you look at the number of journals these days ….and subjournals of big properties like JAMA, NEJM, and JACC….and they need something to fill pages. Then you look at the promotion criteria in academia, with the need to publish and bibliometrics. So you have willing dance partners where intellectual rigor and integrity get sacrificed at the altar of self-promotion.
As Dr. Mandrola says, there has to be a change in the incentive structure or nothing will stem the tide of the rising sea of garbage.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/canadian-euthanized-hearing-loss/
I thought this is what they meant.
I’m getting TWO sets of hearing aids to wear which is obviously twice as good as one set...
I think you are looking at things from a wrong POV.
Once the researchers acknowledge potential confounding and don't play with the data I don't see any problem with this study (an entire different topic is publishing the authors' thoughts, media, etc... but I won't deal with that).
Even serious randomized studies should acknowledge potential confounding they aren't able to identify.
Most medical literature has this same problem: we look for correlations more and more solid but there's always the risk they are just spurious. The ideas that experimental results in published papers are necessarily "good" or even that statistical sophistication ensures that the results are "solid", are ill-conceived.
What apparently lacks in medical research and related fields is a theoretical branch concerned with producing scientific hypotheses and questions and devising powerful experimental frameworks to answer them.
Such well designed research might lead to answering questions and improve our knowledge in a cost effective, transparent, more objective, statistically sound and ethically irreprehensible way. Possibly a way that is even harder to be captured by external interests.
Ofc we have to ensure that indipendent research can come to light as well, but I think we should first worry about the big issue of having a relevant percentage of medical research that is useless or worse:
You can't have good research if - on average - the same smal team does everything from base research, to experimental setup, to funding, to data collection, to statistical analysis, to result interpretation, to writing the paper.
Socioeconomic level is certainly the chief cause for differences in longevity between groups, countries and the individuals within them. One can take any one of a number of factors that differ between relatively prosperous individuals or countries versus those less well off and get an impressive degree of correlation. For example, the average US town probably has more TV sets and expensive cars than the average African village. In a comment below, Pauline correctly points out that hearing aids are expensive and, therefore, more likely to be used by people with a higher income level.
Perhaps the main COD in the never used group was being hit by a bus. Hearing the bus coming would cut down on that major COD ;-)
not sure why you are confused by NPR reporting. they are typically not-objective and very biased, especially around science topics. No serious in depth science coverage.
I've observed that listeners have scotomas on NPR's obvious bias. I don't know if it's the breathy, low-key, way of talking over there that makes them sound more erudite, or the habitual interjection of "sort of" in their commentaries, or the use of "public" in their name, or what. But, I find people are shocked when I comment on npr bias. It's the same with NYT; just because it was once dubbed "paper of record" people can't see their incredible bias.
The study I would really like to see is "association between study quality and mortality reduction".
I am not a researcher, but I can think of a confounder off the top of my head: hearing aids are expensive. Insurance often doesn’t cover them. So lower income people would be less likely to afford them.
Hearing aids nearly cost me my life. Walking back to my office after getting my first set in 1986, I heard a terrifying, screeching sound that nearly caused me to jump into the street in the path of a bus. The sound was birds.
So grateful for Sensible Medicine and all that it has taught me about appraising research, trials, recommendations, healthcare news, etc. Basically I don’t trust anything anymore!
Excellent stance! Like Reagan said, "Trust, but verify!" 😊