ArticleHNO2014
[Quality of universal newborn hearing screening results : Multicenter analysis of data recorded between 2009 and 2012 in four German states].
Article in HNO, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program: 10-Year Outcome and Follow-Up from a Screening Center in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Hearing Screening Marginalized.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- Newborn Hearing Screening in Bavaria-Is It Possible to Reach the Quality Parameters?International journal of neonatal screening · 2018Article
- The Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBearing in mind the impending evaluation of newborn hearing screening in Germany, this study investigated whether multicenter analysis of the screening results from four German states is possible and to what extent the results meet national quality and outcome criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe screening data from 170 hospitals and a total of 533,150 newborns (21 % of all German newborns) from 2009 to 2012 were evaluated according to definite rules and analyzed in terms of averages, as well as over time.
resultsDuring the investigated period and averaged over the hospitals, the quality criteria "percentage of screened newborns" (91.4 %) and "percentage requiring further follow-up" (5.0 %), the "day of screening" (day 4), as well as the target parameter "age at diagnosis" (4.8 months) were not met. Steady improvements were observed over time: in the last year of the evaluation, 95.3 % of children were examined; only 4.8 % required follow-up and the age at diagnosis decreased to 4.2 months. On average, 83 % of the babies were screened before day 4. The steady reduction in variance of most of the variables from the participating hospitals indicates continual improvement.
conclusionA multicenter analysis of screening data is possible and valid in the case of good quality data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24557064What 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.