Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26475713›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2015

Newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium: a consensus recommendation on risk factors.

Bénédicte Vos, Christelle Senterre, Raphaël Lagasse, SurdiScreen Group, Alain Levêque

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Our newborn hearing screening results.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Hearing Disorders in Congenital Toxoplasmosis: A Literature Review.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Newborn hearing screening protocol in tuscany region.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2017
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bénédicte VosResearch Center Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), School of Public Health, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium. benevos@ulb.ac.be.
Christelle SenterreResearch Center Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), School of Public Health, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium. chsenter@ulb.ac.be.
Raphaël LagasseResearch Center Health Policy and Systems - International Health, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), School of Public Health, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium. rlagass@ulb.ac.be.
SurdiScreen Group
Alain LevêqueResearch Center Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Clinical Research, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), School of Public Health, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels, 1070, Belgium. aleveque@ulb.ac.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the risk factors for hearing loss is essential for designing the Belgian newborn hearing screening programme. Accordingly, they needed to be updated in accordance with current scientific knowledge. This study aimed to update the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns with neonatal risk factors of hearing loss for the newborn screening programme in Belgium.

methodsA literature review was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessment method was used to determine the level of evidence quality and strength of the recommendation for each risk factor. The state of scientific knowledge, levels of evidence quality, and graded recommendations were subsequently assessed using a three-round Delphi consensus process (two online questionnaires and one face-to-face meeting).

resultsCongenital infections (i.e., cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, and syphilis), a family history of hearing loss, consanguinity in (grand)parents, malformation syndromes, and foetal alcohol syndrome presented a 'high' level of evidence quality as neonatal risk factors for hearing loss. Because of the sensitivity of auditory function to bilirubin toxicity, hyperbilirubinaemia was assessed at a 'moderate' level of evidence quality. In contrast, a very low birth weight, low Apgar score, and hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit ranged from 'very low' to 'low' levels, and ototoxic drugs were evidenced as 'very low'. Possible explanations for these 'very low' and 'low' levels include the improved management of these health conditions or treatments, and methodological weaknesses such as confounding effects, which make it difficult to conclude on individual risk factors. In the recommendation statements, the experts emphasised avoiding unidentified neonatal hearing loss and opted to include risk factors for hearing loss even in cases with weak evidence. The panel also highlighted the cumulative effect of risk factors for hearing loss.

conclusionsWe revised the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns exhibiting neonatal risk factors for hearing loss on the basis of the aforementioned evidence-based approach and clinical experience from experts. The next step is the implementation of these findings in the Belgian screening programme.

Indexed as

BelgiumFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHearing LossHearing TestsHumansIncidenceInfant, NewbornMaleNeonatal ScreeningPrevalenceProgram EvaluationRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26475713
PMCPMC4609128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.