ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2012
Screening for hearing loss versus parental concern regarding hearing problems: Subsequent referral and treatment for otitis media in the Netherlands.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study investigates whether general practitioner (GP) consultation initiated by failing the population hearing screening at age nine months or GP consultation because of parental concern over ear/hearing problems was more important in deciding on referral and/or surgical treatment of otitis media (OM).
designA questionnaire covering the history between birth and 21 months of age was used to obtain information on referral after failing the hearing screening, GP consultations for ear/hearing problems, and subsequent referral to a specialist and possible surgical treatment at an ENT department.
settingThe province of Limburg, the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Healthy infants invited for the hearing screening at age nine months, who responded in an earlier study called PEPPER (Persistent Ear Problems, Providing Evidence for Referral, response rate 58%).
main outcome measuresThe odds of a child being surgically treated for OM.
resultsThe response rate for the present questionnaire was 72%. Of all children tested, 3.9% failed the hearing screening and were referred to their GP. Of all 2619 children in this study, 18.6% visited their GP with ear/hearing problems. Children failing the hearing screening without GP consultation for ear/hearing problems were significantly more often treated surgically for OM than children passing the hearing screening but with GP consultation for ear/hearing problems.
conclusionObjectified hearing loss, i.e. failing the hearing screening, was important in the decision for surgical treatment in infants in the Netherlands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.