Description: Introduction Hearing loss is a major public health concern, affecting over 11 million people in the UK. While hearing aids are the most common clinical intervention for hearing loss, the majority of people that would benefit from using hearing aids do not take them up. Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. These include hearing aids that can be customised using a smartphone, smartphone-based ‘hearing aid’ apps, personal sound amplification products and wireless hearing products. However, no systematic review has been published evaluating whether alternative listening devices are an effective management strategy for people with hearing loss. Methods and analysis The objective of this systematic review is to assess whether alternative listening devices are an effective intervention for adults with hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. Retrospective or prospective studies, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and before-after comparison studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will include studies with adult participants (≥18 years) with a mild or moderate hearing loss. The intervention should be an alternative listening device to a conventional hearing aid (comparison). Studies will be restricted to outcomes associated with the consequences of hearing loss. We will search relevant databases to identify published, completed but unpublished and ongoing trials. The overall quality of included evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE system, and meta-analysis performed if appropriate. Ethics and dissemination No ethical issues are foreseen. The findings will be reported at national and international conferences, primarily audiology, and ear, nose and throat, and in a peer-reviewed journal using the PRISMA guidelines. Review registration number PROSPERO CRD4201502958 .

Description: The Semail ophiolite in Oman is capped by up to 2 km of basaltic-andesitic lavas that host copper-dominant, Cyprus-type, volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits. This study identifies multiple volcanostratigraphic horizons on which the deposits are situated, based on characterization of footwall and hanging-wall lavas from 16 deposits or deposit clusters. Comparison of field and petrographic features, compositions of igneous clinopyroxenes, and whole-rock geochemical signatures permits classification of the lavas within a modified version of the established regional volcanostratigraphy. Four extrusive units host deposits: Geotimes (earliest), Lasail, Alley, and Boninitic Alley (latest). The latter was previously known only at few localities, but this study reveals its regional extent and significance as a host for VMS deposits. The Geotimes and Lasail units represent Late Cretaceous, ocean spreading ridge and related off-axis volcanic environments, respectively. The Alley and Boninitic Alley units represent younger, subduction-related volcanism prior to Coniacian-Santonian obduction of the ophiolite. Our results show that VMS deposits occur on or near the Geotimes/Lasail and Geotimes/Alley contacts as well as entirely within the Geotimes, Lasail, Alley, and Boninitic Alley units. Highest Cu grades tend to occur in deposits lying on or within the Geotimes, whereas highest Au grades occur in deposits within the Boninitic Alley. In contrast to earlier studies, we conclude that essentially every horizon marking a hiatus in lava deposition in the Semail ophiolite, i.e., contacts between the four major eruptive units, and umbers and sedimentary chert layers within the units, has exploration potential for Cu-Au VMS deposits.

Description: The dependence of much of Africa on rainfed agriculture leads to a high vulnerability to fluctuations in rainfall amount. Hence, accurate monitoring of near-real time rainfall is particularly useful, for example in forewarning of possible crop shortfalls in drought-prone areas. Unfortunately, ground based observations are often inadequate. Rainfall estimates from satellite-based algorithms and numerical model outputs can fill this data gap, however rigorous assessment of such estimates is required. In this case, three satellite based products (NOAA-RFE 2.0, GPCP-1DD and TAMSAT) and two numerical model outputs (ERA-40 and ERA-Interim) have been evaluated for Uganda in East Africa using a network of 27 rain gauges. The study focuses on the years 2001–2005 and considers the main rainy season (February to June). All data sets were converted to the same temporal and spatial scales. Kriging was used for the spatial interpolation of the gauge data. All three satellite products showed similar characteristics and had a high level of skill that exceeded both model outputs. ERA-Interim had a tendency to overestimate whilst ERA-40 consistently underestimated the Ugandan rainfall. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society

Description: The dependence of much of Africa on rainfed agriculture leads to a high vulnerability to fluctuations in rainfall amount. Hence, accurate monitoring of near-real time rainfall is particularly useful, for example in forewarning of possible crop shortfalls in drought-prone areas. Unfortunately, ground based observations are often inadequate. Rainfall estimates from satellite-based algorithms and numerical model outputs can fill this data gap, however rigorous assessment of such estimates is required. In this case, three satellite based products (NOAA-RFE 2.0, GPCP-1DD and TAMSAT) and two numerical model outputs (ERA-40 and ERA-Interim) have been evaluated for Uganda in East Africa using a network of 27 rain gauges. The study focuses on the years 2001–2005 and considers the main rainy season (February to June). All data sets were converted to the same temporal and spatial scales. Kriging was used for the spatial interpolation of the gauge data. All three satellite products showed similar characteristics and had a high level of skill that exceeded both model outputs. ERA-Interim had a tendency to overestimate whilst ERA-40 consistently underestimated the Ugandan rainfall. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society