ArticleHippokratia
Transitory evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) outcomes from a three-stage newborn hearing screening protocol.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 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
- Effect of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Treatment on Hearing and Inner Ear Function in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnoea-Original Research.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Overall Sensitivity and Specificity across Different Newborn Screening Algorithms for Congenital Cytomegalovirus.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Auditory Screening in Newborns after Maternal SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An Overview.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Assessment of the efficacy of hearing screening program in infants in Zahedan.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- Article
- A long-term follow-up study on otoacoustic emissions testing in paediatric patients with severe malaria in Gabon.Malaria journal · 2019Article
- Auditory Deficits in Employees of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO): Need to Take Preventative Action.Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28416905PMC5388509W2997524385What 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.