Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31633599›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Recording Obligatory Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Infants: Quantitative Information on Feasibility and Parent Acceptability.

Kevin J Munro, Suzanne C Purdy, Kai Uus, Anisa Visram, Rachel Ward, Iain A Bruce, Antonia Marsden, Michael A Stone, Bram Van Dun

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Modified TTrends in hearing
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin J MunroManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Suzanne C PurdySchool of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kai UusManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Anisa VisramManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Rachel WardManchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Iain A BruceManchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Antonia MarsdenCentre for Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Michael A StoneManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Bram Van DunNational Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBMacquarie University · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0214-33009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWith the advent of newborn hearing screening and early intervention, there is a growing interest in using supra-threshold obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to complement established pediatric clinical test procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, and parent acceptability, of recording infant CAEPs.

designTypically developing infants (n = 104) who had passed newborn hearing screening and whose parents expressed no hearing concerns were recruited. Testing was not possible in 6 infants, leaving 98, age range 5 to 39 weeks (mean age = 21.9, SD = 9.4). Three short duration speech-like stimuli (/m/, /g/, /t/) were presented at 65 dB SPL via a loudspeaker at 0° azimuth. Three criteria were used to assess clinical feasibility: (i) median test duration <30 min, (ii) >90% completion rate in a single test session, and (iii) >90% response detection for each stimulus. We also recorded response amplitude, latency, and CAEP signal to noise ratio. Response amplitudes and residual noise levels were compared for Fpz (n = 56) and Cz (n = 42) noninverting electrode locations. Parental acceptability was based on an 8-item questionnaire (7-point scale, 1 being best). In addition, we explored the patient experience in semistructured telephone interviews with seven families.

resultsThe median time taken to complete 2 runs for 3 stimuli, including preparation, was 27 min (range 17 to 59 min). Of the 104 infants, 98 (94%) were in an appropriate behavioral state for testing. A further 7 became restless during testing and their results were classified as "inconclusive." In the remaining 91 infants, CAEPs were detected in every case with normal bilateral tympanograms. Detection of CAEPs in response to /m/, /g/, and /t/ in these individuals was 86%, 100%, and 92%, respectively. Residual noise levels and CAEP amplitudes were higher for Cz electrode recordings. Mean scores on the acceptability questionnaire ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. Analysis of interviews indicated that parents found CAEP testing to be a positive experience and recognized the benefit of having an assessment procedure that uses conversational level speech stimuli.

conclusionsTest duration, completion rates, and response detection rates met (or were close to) our feasibility targets, and parent acceptability was high. CAEPs have the potential to supplement existing practice in 3- to 9-month olds.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationChildEvoked Potentials, AuditoryFeasibility StudiesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornParentsSpeech

Identifiers

PMID31633599
PMCPMC7673631
OpenAlexW2963338600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.