ArticleAnnals of medical and health sciences research
Identifying the Optimal Age to Perform Newborn Screening for Hearing Loss in Uganda.
Article in Annals of medical and health sciences research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programmes for neonates, infants and children in non-Asian low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of optimal postnatal timing for the screening of neonatal hearing via transient evoked oto-acoustic emission (TEOAE): a retrospective cross-sectional study.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Progress of the Egyptian National Newborn Hearing Screening (ENHS) Program over a Four-Year Period.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Newborn and infant hearing screening for early detection of hearing loss in Nairobi, Kenya.African health sciences · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPermanent congenital hearing loss affects up to 6/1000 births in developing countries. Currently, in Uganda there is no newborn screening for hearing loss (NSHL) program and no published work on this topic. Within the existing healthcare system there are two opportunities to deliver screening, at birth or 6 weeks of age when infants receive their immunizations.
aimThis study explored the outcomes of otoacoustic emission (OAE) testing in infants at birth and 6 weeks of age, to identify the optimal age for screening. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional pilot study recruited 60 consecutive infants from two health centres in Kampala, Uganda. Thirty infants were newborns recruited from the postnatal ward and 30 were aged 4-8 weeks from the immunization clinic, we performed OAE testing on all infants.
resultsThe results showed 56.7% (17/30) of newborn infants passed OAE testing compared with 90.0% (27/30) of the immunization infants, P < 0.01. Furthermore, of the 11 newborn infants aged ≥24 h of age 90.9% (10/11) passed, compared with the 19 infants <24 h of age where 37% (7/19) passed, P < 0.01.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a higher pass rate for OAE testing for infants ≥24 h of age compared to those <24 h of age. The overall lower pass rate of the newborn infants could be due to external ear debris and middle ear fluid compromising the OAE testing. These findings would support a NSHL programme in Uganda that offers screening to infants ≥24 h of age, to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the program.
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.