Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28416905›Full record

ArticleHippokratia

Transitory evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) outcomes from a three-stage newborn hearing screening protocol.

M G Tzanakakis, T S Chimona, E Apazidou, C Giannakopoulou, G A Velegrakis, C E Papadakis

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M G TzanakakisENT Department, General Hospital of Chania, Chania, , Greece.
T S ChimonaENT Department, General Hospital of Chania, Chania, , Greece.
E ApazidouNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, General Hospital of Chania, Chania, , Greece.
C GiannakopoulouNeonatal Intensive Care Unit University of Crete School of Medicine, Heraklion, Greece.
G A VelegrakisENT Department, University of Crete School of Medicine, Heraklion, Greece.
C E PapadakisENT Department, General Hospital of Chania, Chania, , Greece.
Chania General Hospital ”St. George” · GRUniversity of Crete · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComparison of the efficacy of Transitory Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAEs) and Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) in a neonatal hearing screening protocol, based on a three-stage strategy.

methodsIn the first stage, a hearing screening using both evoked emissions was conducted in 3,480 neonates from March 2006 through January 2012. Both TEOAEs and DPOAEs were recorded. Neonates, who did not undergo the test before being discharged, were examined within 30 days at a scheduled appointment. Follow-up of the referred newborns (second-stage screening) was performed as an outpatient re-screening, within a month. The third-stage evaluation, i.e., the diagnostic testing, included a clinical otolaryngological examination, high-frequency tympanometry at 1,000 Hz and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) measurements.

resultsA total of 3,480 (97%) newborns (n =1,765 males) out of 3,595 infants were enrolled in the study. In the first-stage evaluation, 8.9 % of the infants were referred according to TEOAEs, while the percentage of the referred infants for DPΟΑΕs was 25.7 %. At this initial assessment stage, the specificity of TEOAES and DPOAEs were determined as 92% and 75%, while positive predictive values (PPV) were 3.8 % and 1.3 %, respectively. In the second stage of evaluation, the specificity of TEOAES and DPOAEs were 86 % and 76 %, while the PPV increased to 18 % and 15 %, respectively.

conclusionsWith a lower follow-up rate, TEOAEs testing was significantly easier to perform and more reliable compared to the DPOAEs test. Hippokratia 2016, 20(2): 104-109.

Indexed as

distortion product otoacoustic emissionshearing lossNewborn hearing screeningtransient evoked otoacoustic emissions

Identifiers

PMID28416905
PMCPMC5388509
OpenAlexW2997524385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.