ArticleHNO2007
[The model project "newborn auditory screening" in the Upper Palatinate: high process and result quality of an interdisciplinary concept].
Article in HNO, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality measures of two-stage newborn hearing screening: systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Universal newborn hearing screening, a revolutionary diagnosis of deafness: real benefits and limitations.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2011Review
- Interdisciplinary approach to design, performance, and quality management in a multicenter newborn hearing screening project. Discussion of the results of newborn hearing screening in Hamburg (part II).European journal of pediatrics · 2010Article
- Review
- Early detection of hearing loss.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2008Article
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
backgroundIn May 2003, a newborn auditory screening program was initiated in the Upper Palatinate.
methodsSequential OAE- and BERA-screening was conducted in all hospitals with obstetric facilities. The Screening Center at the Public Health Authority was responsible for the coordination of the screening process, completeness of participation, the follow-up of all subjects with a positive screening test and the quality of instrumental screening.
resultsA total of 96% of 17,469 newborns were screened. The referral rate at discharge was 1.6% (0.4% for bilateral positive findings). For 97% of the positive screening results, a definite diagnosis to confirm or exclude hearing loss was achieved; for 43% only after intervention by the Screening Center. Fifteen children with profound bilateral hearing impairment were identified of whom eight were only detected by the intervention of the Screening Center.
conclusionThe effective structures established in the Upper Palatinate provide a standard for the quality of neonatal auditory screening achievable in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16528506What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.