ArticleJournal of early hearing detection and intervention2019
Evaluating Data Quality of Newborn Hearing Screening.
Article in Journal of early hearing detection and intervention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of hearing history, etiology, vestibular and balance function, and socioeconomic marginalization on developmental outcomes in children with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Challenges of Newborn Hearing Screening Programs in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program: 10-Year Outcome and Follow-Up from a Screening Center in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
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
Abstract
scopeJurisdictional-based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Information Systems (EHDI-IS) collect data on the hearing screening and follow-up status of infants across the United States. These systems serve as tools that assist EHDI programs' staff and partners in their tracking activities and provide a variety of data reports to help ensure that all children who are deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) are identified early and receive recommended intervention services. The quality and timeliness of the data collected with these systems are crucial to effectively meeting these goals. METHODOLOGY: Forty-eight EHDI programs, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), successfully evaluated the accuracy, completeness, uniqueness, and timeliness of the hearing screening data as well as the acceptability (i.e., willingness to report) of the EHDI-IS among data reporters (2013-2016). This article describes the evaluations conducted and presents the findings from these evaluation activities.
conclusionsMost state EHDI programs are receiving newborn hearing screening results from hospitals and birthing facilities in a consistent way and data reporters are willing to report according to established protocols. However, additional efforts are needed to improve the accuracy and completeness of reported demographic data, results from infants transferred from other hospitals, and results from infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
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.