ArticleHNO2017
[Transregional tracking in newborn hearing screening].
Article in HNO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program: 10-Year Outcome and Follow-Up from a Screening Center in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- The Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2018Article
- Newborn Hearing Screening - An Implementation Analysis.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveWhen patients in the universal newborn hearing screening program move from one geographical area to another between initial screening and medical follow-up, the responsibility for their tracking also moves from one screening center to another. As a result, these patients are lost to follow-up according to the center which had initial responsibility. In cooperation with the Association of German Hearing Screening Centers ("Verband Deutscher Hörscreening-Zentralen e. V.," VDHZ) as an offer to the developers of tracking software, a concept for nationwide tracking including a reference implementation and evaluation is described.
methodsOn the basis of error analysis of real screening data, techniques for preprocessing data, the technical background of the interface, and details regarding integration of the interface into tracking software are presented. Data from a stress test are shown.
resultsIn a simulation stress test with six hearing screening centers and 54,551 children, all requests were answered within an average response time of 637 ms (standard deviation, SD = 266 ms; median 613 ms). Anonymized surnames (n = 675/1.24%) and duplicate entries in the database (n = 49/0.01%) were detected.
conclusionA transregional tracking procedure using heterogeneous tracking software is possible without the use of a standardized screening ID. The presented approach seems conceptually and technically suitable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28940002What 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.