ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Quality indicators in a newborn hearing screening service.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 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.
- Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program in Jordan.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Epidemiological Profile of Neonates in Hearing Screening at a Maternity of a Tertiary Hospital in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Congenital Infections in Newborns and Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening in Santa Catarina, Brazil.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Children's Hearing Health Panorama in the Unified Health System in the state of Sergipe.CoDAS · 2023Article
- Analysis of an outpatient child hearing health program: from screening to referral for rehabilitation.CoDAS · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNewborn hearing screening (NHS) programs are implemented across the globe to detect early hearing impairment. In order to meet this objective, the quality of these programs should be monitored using internationally recognized indicators.
objectiveTo evaluate a newborn hearing screening service (NHSS) using international quality indicators.
methodsA retrospective cohort study on the NHSS of Minas Gerais was conducted, analyzing the services performed between 2010 and 2011. Results were analyzed according to criteria from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing.
resultsThis study assessed 6987 children. The proportions of cases that were referred for a retest, that followed through with retest, and that were referred for diagnosis were 8.0%, 71.9%, and 2.1%, respectively. The proportion of assessed newborn children in the first 30 days of life in this study was 65%. The median age of those children who failed both the NHS and the retest was significantly higher than the other children. The chance of a child with a hearing impairment risk indicator to fail the NHS was 2.4 times higher than of those without a risk indicator.
conclusionNHSS achieved three of four evaluated indicators. Despite this, it is still necessary to perform NHS earlier and to ensure that the subsequent steps are followed.
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.