Prevalence of dual sensory impairment in veterans: a rapid systematic review.
Zara Raza, Syeda F Hussain, Renata S M Gomes
PMID 38496779WHAT IT FOUND
Reported prevalence of dual sensory impairment in veterans varied widely from 5.0% to 34.6%.
This inconsistency stems from different definitions and measurement methods, not necessarily true differences in risk.
Key findings
01DSI prevalence estimates in veterans ranged from 5.0% to 34.6% across the five included studies.
02The wide variation in prevalence is driven by inconsistent definitions of DSI and differing measurement methods for vision and hearing.
03Most included studies relied on self-reported symptoms rather than objective clinical assessment, introducing potential bias.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only five studies, all cross-sectional, limiting causal inference. Definitions and measurement methods for DSI varied widely between studies, making direct comparison of prevalence rates invalid. Four of the five studies relied on self-reported symptoms for vision and hearing, which is subject to bias and may underestimate or overestimate true impairment. Sample characteristics differed substantially, with some studies focusing exclusively on veterans with TBI and others on general veteran populations. The search was limited to English-language articles and a small number of databases, potentially missing relevant international studies.
Declared interests
The paper does not report any specific conflicts of interest or funding sources in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the 5.0% to 34.6% range as evidence that DSI is more or less common in veterans than civilians. The variation is primarily due to different ways the studies defined and measured sensory impairment, not necessarily true differences in population risk.